Retrieves the markdown content of an Obsidian note from a specified vault path so you can inspect or process its text.
Read the markdown content of a note in the vault.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Path to the note (e.g. 'Notes/my-note.md') |
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. The word 'read' implies a safe, non-mutating operation on the vault, which is meaningful, but there is no disclosure of error behavior (nonexistent path, unreadable file), path resolution rules, or size/encoding limits.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it sits near the edge of under-specification rather than being a model of tight, informative phrasing.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, stating that it returns the note's markdown content covers the essential return-value question. Missing error and path-resolution context keeps it from being fully complete.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single path parameter is documented with a concrete example ('Notes/my-note.md'). The description adds no further meaning about path format, relative vs. absolute resolution, or extension handling, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (read) and resource (markdown content of a note in the vault), which is clearer than a name-only restatement. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_active_note or open_note, so the agent must infer the boundary.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like get_active_note, open_note, search_vault, and list_vault_files available, the agent is left to guess whether read_note requires an explicit path, whether the note can be unopened, or when a search tool is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.