Read attachment files from an Obsidian vault, returning text as UTF-8 and binary as base64 with MIME type and encoding.
Read an attachment file. data.content is a UTF-8 string for text files, or base64-encoded bytes for binary ones (images, PDFs) — data.mime_type and data.encoding say which.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| vault | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose output format behavior (UTF-8 vs base64, mime_type/encoding), which is useful. However, it omits error handling, permissions, and any side-effect declaration (though 'read' implies none). It partially compensates for missing annotations but not fully.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Read an attachment file') and then provides essential output details. No waste, efficient and clear.
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?
The tool has an output schema (not shown) which covers return values, but the description still fails to explain parameter usage, preconditions (e.g., need a path from list_attachments_tool), or error cases. For a read tool with two params and no schema coverage, this is incomplete.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention 'path' or 'vault' at all, leaving the agent to guess what path refers to (relative/absolute, vault-relative?) and what vault does. This is a major gap for a 2-parameter tool.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Read an attachment file.' This distinguishes it from siblings like list_attachments_tool (listing) and add_attachment_tool (writing). It could be a 5 if it explicitly noted the need for a path, but the purpose is 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that list_attachments_tool should be used to discover paths, or that read_note_tool is for notes, or that vault is optional. The agent is left to infer usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.