Retrieve today's daily note or fetch an Obsidian note by date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Use it to access dated journal entries, daily logs, or calendar-based notes remotely.
Reads today's or a specific date's daily note
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No |
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 behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation but never states what happens if the daily note for the requested date does not exist, whether a note is created, or what the returned content looks like.
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 short sentence with the key temporal distinction front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it leaves real gaps rather than being optimally sized.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits the missing-note behavior and the distinction from the generic read_note sibling, which are the two things an agent most needs to route correctly.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially: 'today's or a specific date's' conveys that the date parameter is optional and defaults to today, which the schema does not say in prose. However, it adds no format guidance (the YYYY-MM-DD constraint lives only in the schema pattern) and no timezone semantics.
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 (reads) and a specific resource (daily note), and clarifies the temporal scope ('today's or a specific date's'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling obsidian_read_note, which also reads notes; an agent must infer that this one auto-resolves the daily-note path.
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?
Usage is implied by the 'daily note' framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over obsidian_read_note, and no mention of the related obsidian_append_daily_note/obsidian_prepend_daily_note siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.