read_noteRead a note's full markdown content from the Obsidian vault by providing its vault-relative path. Access the raw note body for viewing, processing, or analysis.
Read a note's full markdown content. Use get_metadata for tags and frontmatter, and get_links/get_backlinks about connections to other notes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Vault-relative note path, e.g. 'Projects/Roadmap.md'. Extension optional. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral scoping: the tool returns full markdown content only, not frontmatter or links, preventing incorrect expectations. It doesn't detail missing-path behavior, but the readOnly context and simple scope make this a minor gap.
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 sentences with the purpose front-loaded and sibling routing in the second sentence. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler.
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-only tool, the description plus schema fully covers what the tool accepts, what it returns, and how it differs from siblings. No output schema exists, but return value is clearly implied by 'full markdown content,' and error behavior is not critical given the readOnlyHint.
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%, and the schema fully documents 'path' including Vault-relative format, example, and optional extension. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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+resource ('Read a note's full markdown content') and distinguishes from siblings by directing get_metadata to tags/frontmatter and get_links/get_backlinks to connections. An agent can tell exactly what this tool provides versus adjacent tools.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: 'Use get_metadata for tags and frontmatter, and get_links/get_backlinks about connections to other notes.' This is clear when-not guidance that leaves nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.