Search a local Obsidian markdown vault for relevant notes using lexical full-text queries across index.md and wiki pages, returning ranked results with snippets.
Lexical full-text search over index.md and wiki pages.
Returns ranked results with page id, title, score, matched terms, and a prose snippet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses that matching is lexical (not semantic/graph based) and describes the result shape, but says nothing about query syntax, index scope/freshness, or the effect of limit, which matters for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the return shape; no filler and nothing redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Because there is no output schema, the description usefully covers return fields, and it names the searched sources. It still omits query-language guidance, limit behavior, and any behavioral constraints, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the schema offers no field-level documentation. The description does not mention `query` or `limit` at all, leaving query syntax and the meaning/default of limit entirely undocumented for the agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb+resource (lexical full-text search over index.md and wiki pages) and explicitly says it is lexical, which implicitly distinguishes it from graph/semantic siblings like kb_graph_summary and kb_build_context. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with kb_read_page, so an agent must infer the routing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can guess you call this to locate pages before reading them. There is no explicit when-to-use, no condition that selects it over kb_read_page or kb_graph_summary, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.