Reads the full content and frontmatter of an Obsidian vault note by path, enabling assistants to inspect note text and metadata for analysis or edits.
Reads the full content and frontmatter of a vault note
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that both content and frontmatter are returned, but says nothing about error behavior for a missing path, permission/vault-connection prerequisites, or whether the read is path-scoped. For a no-annotation tool this is a notable 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?
A single well-formed sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing usage and parameter detail.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, revealing that content and frontmatter are returned is close to sufficient. Still missing are path format/semantics and behavior on a nonexistent note, which an agent would need before invoking.
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% and the single 'path' parameter has no description in either place. The description never clarifies whether the path is vault-relative, absolute, includes the .md extension, or may use folder separators — the one detail an agent most needs to call this correctly.
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 resource (vault note) and even names the returned parts (full content and frontmatter), which distinguishes it from metadata tools like obsidian_get_file_info. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from the closest siblings (obsidian_read_daily_note, obsidian_get_note_context), so it stops short of a 5.
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?
No statement of when to use this tool versus obsidian_read_daily_note, obsidian_get_note_context, or obsidian_get_file_info. Usage must be inferred purely from the name and the one-line purpose; there are no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.