Skip to main content
Glama
libra850
by libra850

read_note

Retrieve content from Obsidian notes using their vault paths to access and display stored information.

Instructions

Obsidianノートの内容を読み込みます

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notePathYesノートのパス(vault相対パス)

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that executes the 'read_note' tool logic: validates the note path, checks file existence, and reads the file content from the Obsidian vault.
    async readNote(notePath: string): Promise<string> {
      if (!FileUtils.validatePath(this.config.vaultPath, notePath)) {
        throw new Error('無効なファイルパスです');
      }
    
      const fullPath = path.join(this.config.vaultPath, notePath);
      
      if (!(await FileUtils.fileExists(fullPath))) {
        throw new Error(`ノート '${notePath}' が見つかりません`);
      }
    
      return await fs.readFile(fullPath, 'utf-8');
    }
  • src/server.ts:88-101 (registration)
    Registers the 'read_note' tool in the ListTools response, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'read_note',
      description: 'Obsidianノートの内容を読み込みます',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          notePath: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'ノートのパス(vault相対パス)',
          },
        },
        required: ['notePath'],
      },
    },
  • The CallToolRequestSchema handler case that dispatches the 'read_note' tool call to the ObsidianHandler.readNote method and formats the response.
    case 'read_note':
      const noteContent = await this.obsidianHandler.readNote(args.notePath as string);
      return {
        content: [{ type: 'text', text: noteContent }],
      };
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of reading/loading note content, without addressing permissions (e.g., read-only access), error handling (e.g., for invalid paths), or output format (e.g., text, metadata). This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that interacts with files.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more front-loaded with key details if expanded for better clarity.

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?

Given the complexity of file I/O operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '読み込みます' entails (e.g., returns content as text, handles errors), leaving gaps in understanding how the tool behaves and what results to expect, which is inadequate for safe and effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'notePath' clearly documented in the schema as 'ノートのパス(vault相対パス)' (note path relative to vault). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as path format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the action ('読み込みます' - reads/loads) and resource ('Obsidianノートの内容' - Obsidian note content), providing a basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'update_note' or 'search_files' that might also involve note content access, making it vague about its specific role in the toolset.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for viewing vs. editing), or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone. This lack of explicit or implied guidelines reduces effectiveness in tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/libra850/obsidian-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server