Obsidian MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating this is a safe read operation with limited scope. The description adds useful context about what gets searched ('notes') and the types of criteria available, but doesn't disclose behavioral aspects like performance characteristics, rate limits, or error conditions. With annotations covering the safety profile, this earns a baseline score.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a comprehensive parameter list. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more concise by grouping related parameters, but overall it's efficient and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 complex search tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining inputs but has gaps. It doesn't describe the return format (what the search results look like), error conditions, or performance considerations. The parameter explanations are excellent, but without output information or behavioral context, completeness is limited.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (titles only, no descriptions), the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides detailed semantic information for all 16 parameters, including data types, formats, and usage examples (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD' for dates, 'text' or 'regex' for query_type). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search Obsidian vault for notes matching criteria.' This specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('Obsidian vault'), and target ('notes matching criteria'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'browse_vault_structure' or 'get_note_content', which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of sibling tools like 'browse_vault_structure' (for exploring structure) or 'get_note_content' (for retrieving specific note content), nor any context about when search is appropriate versus other approaches.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.