Retrieve the full content of any Obsidian note, including frontmatter, body, and wikilinks, by providing its relative path.
Reads the content of a vault note, returning frontmatter, body, and wikilinks found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Relative path of the note inside the vault (e.g. "Folder/Note.md") |
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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a non-mutating read and names the returned data, which is helpful, but it does not describe error behavior for missing paths, how wikilinks are represented, or whether any normalization occurs.
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, compact sentence with the active verb front-loaded and no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes meaningful information about the tool's behavior.
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 tool with one well-documented required parameter, the description and schema together are sufficient for an agent to make a correct call. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by explicitly listing the returned components, though error conditions and path-resolution details remain unspecified.
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 schema description covers 100% of parameters, including a relative path example, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, this is adequate.
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 starts with a specific verb, 'Reads', and a clear resource, 'a vault note', so the core action is unambiguous. It further enumerates what is returned (frontmatter, body, wikilinks), which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_notes, search_notes, and get_backlinks.
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 implies that this tool is for retrieving a note's content, and the sibling names make alternatives inferable. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus search_notes, list_notes, or get_backlinks, nor does it mention any exclusions or preferred conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.