top_pluginsList the most-downloaded Obsidian community plugins, optionally filtered by keyword, to see which ones dominate a category before you enter it.
List the most-downloaded community plugins, optionally filtered by keyword. Use this to see which plugins dominate a category before entering it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Optional keyword filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the ordering semantics (descending by downloads), which the schema does not state, but omits return shape, pagination, the 100-item cap, and the empty-query behavior. Read-only intent is implied but never affirmed.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the use case. No filler, no redundant restatement of the title.
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?
For a simple two-param, zero-required list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool returns at a conceptual level (a ranked plugin list) and its optional filter. The main gap is silence on limit behavior and result ordering guarantees, which is minor at this complexity.
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 coverage is 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema while 'limit' has no description there. The description restates the keyword filter ('optionally filtered by keyword') but says nothing about 'limit', its default of 25, or its maximum of 100, so it only partially compensates.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('most-downloaded community plugins') with the ranking criterion folded into the resource itself, which separates it semantically from search_plugins. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but 'most-downloaded' is a clear distinguishing scope.
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?
Gives a use case ('see which plugins dominate a category before entering it'), which implies a browse-first, discovery-oriented context. It never names search_plugins or get_plugin as alternatives, so the agent must infer when ranked listing beats keyword search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.