Another bloated Obsidian MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

read_note

Retrieve a note's full markdown content and parsed YAML frontmatter from an Obsidian vault. Provides direct access to note data for AI workflows without requiring Obsidian to be open.

Instructions

Read the content and frontmatter of a specific note. Returns the markdown content and parsed YAML frontmatter if present.

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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path to the note relative to vault root (e.g., "Projects/MyProject.md")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the return behavior (markdown content and parsed YAML frontmatter if present), conveying the read-only nature. It does not detail error handling, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 a single, focused sentence that immediately states the operation and return value. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read tool with one well-documented parameter, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the presence of frontmatter. It lacks only edge-case behavior (e.g., missing files), but this is not essential for such a straightforward operation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with the path parameter fully described as 'relative to vault root' with an example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: reading the content and frontmatter of a specific note. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_notes (which lists notes) and get_frontmatter (which only reads frontmatter), making it unambiguous which tool to use.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need both content and frontmatter of a specific note), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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