get_frontmatterRetrieve a note's YAML frontmatter as JSON to access tags, dates, and custom fields without loading the full note.
Read a note's YAML frontmatter (its properties: tags, dates, custom fields) as JSON. Cheaper than read_note when you only need metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Vault-relative note path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms the read-only nature. It adds useful behavioral context by noting the tool is cheaper than read_note and returns JSON, going beyond the annotation's basic safety signal.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a brief efficiency comparison with read_note. Every word 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?
With no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return format (JSON) and lists common frontmatter fields (tags, dates, custom fields). It handles the essentials for a simple read-only tool, though it could mention edge cases like missing frontmatter.
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 coverage is 100% and the path parameter is already well-documented as 'Vault-relative note path'. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so it rests at the baseline for full 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?
Description states the specific verb ('Read'), the resource ('a note's YAML frontmatter'), and the output format ('as JSON'). It also clearly distinguishes itself from read_note by emphasizing it's cheaper and focused only on metadata, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 phrase 'Cheaper than read_note when you only need metadata' explicitly gives the condition for using this tool and names the alternative. An agent can immediately decide between reading full note content versus just metadata.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.