Read a markdown note from an Obsidian vault by relative path, enabling AI assistants to fetch specific vault content for search, review, or reference tasks.
Read a markdown note from the vault by relative path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| tags | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| content | Yes |
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. 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, but nothing is said about failure behavior for missing paths, permission requirements, or whether the note is returned raw. An output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure is not required, but operational behavior is sparse.
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 zero filler. The verb, resource, and scoping constraint all land immediately.
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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials. It omits what 'relative' is relative to and what happens on a bad path, which are the main remaining gaps for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single 'path' parameter. It does add one meaningful detail: the path is relative, which implies resolution against the vault root. It stops short of specifying the base, format, or extension handling.
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 (read) and resource (a markdown note from the vault) with a scoping qualifier ('by relative path'). It is clear enough to act on, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling read_resource, leaving ambiguity about which reader to pick.
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 guidance on when to use notes_read versus list_resources, read_resource, or search_query. The description states what it does but gives no context, prerequisites, or alternatives to route the agent correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.