get_noteRead a note from an Obsidian vault by providing its vault-relative path, giving code agents direct access to specific note content.
Read a note from the vault by its vault-relative path (e.g. 'Dev days/foo.md').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | vault-relative path to the note |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the operation is a read ('Read a note'), implying non-destructive behavior. However, it does not disclose behavior on missing notes, invalid paths, or return format. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not rich; it adds only the 'read' trait beyond the tool name.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The core action ('Read a note') comes first, followed by the method and a helpful example. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The tool is simple: one parameter, no output schema, no annotations. The description provides the essential input format and a clear action. It doesn't mention return value structure or error behavior, but for a basic read operation this is a minor gap. The example and clarity make it sufficiently complete for an agent to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already documented. The description adds a concrete example ('Dev days/foo.md') that illustrates the folder structure and file extension, which the schema description ('vault-relative path') lacks. This extra context helps the agent format the path correctly, exceeding the baseline of 3.
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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a note from the vault') and provides the method (by vault-relative path). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_notes (list all), update_note (modify), and search (query by criteria). The example path format adds precision.
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 description makes the use case clear: retrieve a single note when its vault-relative path is known. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use search if you don't know the path'), but the context is unambiguous. The example path clarifies the expected input format, aiding correct usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.