Query your indexed markdown vault semantically to find relevant note chunks. Ask natural-language questions to retrieve answers from your notes.
Perform a semantic search on the indexed vault.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of chunks to retrieve (default 5) | |
| query | Yes | Question or query to ask your notes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't say the operation is read-only, that it requires a prior index build, what is returned (chunks/scores), or how 'limit' affects output – all relevant for a retrieval tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though its brevity is also what leaves the gaps noted elsewhere.
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 retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what comes back and any index prerequisite. It says only that a search is performed, leaving the agent under-informed about results and preconditions.
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 100%: both 'query' and 'limit' (default 5) are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (semantic search) and resource (indexed vault), which distinguishes it from obsidian_search_notes (keyword search) and obsidian_rag_index (indexing). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5, but the purpose is clear.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of the sibling obsidian_search_notes, which an agent must disambiguate against. The only implicit cue is the word 'semantic', and no prerequisites (e.g. that the vault must be indexed first) are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.