obsidian-mcp

read_note_tool

Read an Obsidian note at the level of detail you need: full content, outline structure, or rendered with embeds resolved. Choose mode to get only what you require.

Instructions

Read one note at the level of detail you actually need.

mode:

'full' (default) — data: {content, frontmatter, tags, aliases, wikilinks, block_refs, callouts, tasks, inline_fields}.
'outline' — structure only, no body text: data: {headings, block_refs, frontmatter_keys, tags, aliases, inline_fields, word_count, line_count}. Use this on a large note when you only need its shape.
'rendered' — data: {rendered}, the note with all ![[embed]] transclusions resolved inline.

depth applies to mode='rendered' only: 0=raw, 1=one level of embeds (default), 2=nested embeds.

The envelope's revision is the token to pass back as expected_revision when writing (modes 'full' and 'outline'; a rendered read spans several notes, so it pins nothing).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No	full
`path`	Yes
`depth`	No
`vault`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it is highly transparent: it details the data returned per mode, depth semantics for rendered embeds, and the revision-pinning nuance. It even notes that rendered reads span several notes and therefore pin nothing.

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?

The description is dense but well organized: purpose first, then mode and depth details, then the revision caveat. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The output schema already exists, so the returned field lists do not need deeper explanation. The main remaining gap is the complete absence of path/vault semantics, which matters for a required parameter.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, so the tool description must compensate. It thoroughly explains mode and depth, but it never describes the path parameter (the required note identifier/location) or the vault parameter, which remain undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Read one note'. The mode list then defines what 'level of detail' means, clearly distinguishing this from sibling list/search/write tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives explicit usage guidance for mode='outline' ('Use this on a large note when you only need its shape') and clarifies when depth applies. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like list_notes_tool or search_notes_tool, so no when-not-to-use boundaries are stated.

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