Retrieve metadata from a Markdown note, including frontmatter, tags, and file details, without the body content.
Return Markdown note metadata without the body.
Returns parsed frontmatter, extracted tags, and file metadata for .md.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | vault-relative path, such as 'folder/note.md' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description uses 'Return' and explicitly says 'without the body', implying a read-only operation with no side effects. This is sufficient in the absence of annotations to convey that the tool does not modify anything.
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 concise and to the point, with no unnecessary words. The two sentences are efficient and cover the tool's purpose and output without redundancy.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description provides enough detail (parsed frontmatter, tags, file metadata) to set expectations. It also specifies the file type, making the tool's behavior sufficiently complete for an agent.
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 only parameter 'path' is clearly described in the schema as a vault-relative path with an example. The tool description reinforces that it applies to Markdown notes, fully clarifying the expected input without needing additional explanation.
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 clearly states the tool returns metadata (frontmatter, tags, file metadata) for a Markdown note, and distinguishes it from read_note and other note operations. It is specific enough for an agent to know exactly what to expect.
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 explicitly states it returns metadata without the body, making it clear when to use this tool instead of read_note or other note-content tools. The scope is limited to .md files, which is a useful constraint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.