Read content from multiple Obsidian notes at once to analyze connections and extract information efficiently.
Read content from multiple notes simultaneously
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes | Array of note paths to read |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads content but doesn't specify what happens if paths are invalid, if there are rate limits, permission requirements, or the format of the returned content. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with multiple resources.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance.
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 output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what content is returned (e.g., raw text, structured data), error handling, or performance implications for reading multiple notes. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, this leaves critical gaps.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'paths' parameter as an array of note paths. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, such as path format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 action ('Read content') and resource ('from multiple notes simultaneously'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'read_note' tool which presumably reads a single note. However, it doesn't specify the format or scope of the content being read (e.g., full text, metadata, or specific fields).
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 usage when multiple notes need to be read at once, suggesting an alternative to repeatedly calling 'read_note'. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over 'read_note' or other siblings like 'list_notes' or 'search_vault', nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.