get_activeRead the note currently open in Obsidian to retrieve its content for immediate use.
Read the note currently open in Obsidian.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_active"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It makes clear that the operation is a read of the active note, which is useful, but it does not describe edge-case behavior such as what happens if no note is open or what exact form the returned content takes.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler words. The action and target are front-loaded, giving maximum clarity in minimal space.
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 zero-parameter read tool, this description covers the essential operation and target selection. The only missing context is edge-case behavior like having no active note, which is a minor gap given the simplicity of the tool.
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?
The input schema is empty and has 100% coverage, so it provides no parameter meanings. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description appropriately adds the key semantic: the target note is selected by its currently-open state.
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?
The description uses a specific verb, 'Read', and identifies the exact resource: the note currently open in Obsidian. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_note and list_notes because it targets the active note rather than a specified path or a collection.
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?
The phrase 'currently open' implies the tool should be used when the agent wants the note that is active in Obsidian, not a note selected by name or path. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of get_note or how to handle cases where no note is open, leaving usage to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.