Read an Obsidian note or a single section by heading to retrieve its text, frontmatter, links and backlinks; credentials are redacted and private notes are refused.
The text of a note (or of one section, by heading), its frontmatter, links and backlinks.
Credentials in the text are replaced with [REDACTED]. Private notes are refused.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| heading | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: credential redaction and refusal of private notes. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it describe error handling or permission requirements beyond private notes.
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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads what the tool returns and follows with critical behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place.
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 the lack of annotations and no output schema, the description does a decent job of describing return values and key constraints. However, it omits important details such as path format, error behavior if the note is not found, and explicit read-only status, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at the 'heading' parameter ('or of one section, by heading'), but does not explain the required 'path' parameter or its expected format. The compensation is partial and insufficient for full clarity.
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 specifies the resource (a note or section by heading) and the returned data (text, frontmatter, links, backlinks), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like search or find_projects, but the scope is sufficiently distinct.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search or find_projects is provided. The description implies usage (opening a note by path), but there are no when/when-not statements or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.