Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp-server

obsidian-mcp-server

by indie-geeker
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

read_note

Retrieve the full content of an existing Obsidian note by providing its vault-relative file path, enabling AI to access and process note text.

Instructions

Read the content of an existing note

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "filepath": "<filepath>"
    },
    "name": "read_note"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filepathYesPath to the note file relative to vault root (e.g., 'Daily/2024-01-01.md')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only weakly carries it. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about behavior for missing paths, encoding, size limits, or whether content is returned raw or parsed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral and usage detail noted elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a trivial one-parameter read tool this is nearly adequate, especially since the param is fully documented. With no annotations and no output schema, though, the description should at least say what the note content is returned as and how a missing file behaves.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single filepath parameter is documented with a concrete relative-path example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema is complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('content of an existing note'), so an agent immediately knows this retrieves note body text. It does not, however, distinguish itself from get_note_metadata, which reads a different facet of the same resource — that distinction is left to the agent to infer.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: 'existing note' hints the file must already be present and that update/delete are the mutation counterparts. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no routing guidance against get_note_metadata or search_notes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools