Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian MCP Server

Obsidian MCP Server

by JujiuYey
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

read_note

Retrieve the content of an Obsidian note by providing its file path. Optionally include frontmatter metadata for more context.

Instructions

Read the content of a specific note

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "read_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to the note file (relative to vault root or absolute)
include_metadataNoWhether to include frontmatter metadata in the output

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Read', which implies non-destructive, but does not explain return format, handling of missing paths, or the effect of include_metadata (which defaults to false). Additional behavioral context is needed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No redundant words or unnecessary details are present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read tool, the description states the core function, but lacks details about return value structure or usage context. Given no output schema and no annotations, it is minimally viable but has gaps in explaining what the agent can expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides complete descriptions for both parameters (path and include_metadata), so the tool description adds no extra parameter meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Read the content of a specific note' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from list_notes (listing), search_notes (searching), and update_note (modifying). It precisely identifies the action and target.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is used when you need the content of a single note, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives like search_notes or list_notes. No when-not scenarios or alternative recommendations are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools