obsidian-local-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Node

get_node

Fetch a single node by its exact ID to retrieve code graph data or Obsidian vault content for dependency checks, impact analysis, or context lookup.

Instructions

Fetch one node by its exact id.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`vault`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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 burden. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose permission needs, error behavior when the id is missing, or the role of the vault parameter. It adds little beyond the name get_node.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, object, and lookup constraint efficiently.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the vault parameter and usage context unexplained, which is a meaningful gap.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are two parameters. The description clarifies that 'id' is an exact match, but it never mentions the optional 'vault' parameter or its default, leaving a key parameter undocumented.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('node') with a clear lookup mode ('by its exact id'). This separates it from list/search tools, but it does not name or compare any sibling alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of search_nodes, neighbors, or read_note. The phrase 'by its exact id' implies the precondition of already knowing the id, but alternatives and exclusions are absent.

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