Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp

obsidian-mcp

by ALQ78
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

vault_backlinks

Lists notes that link to a specified file, helping you verify backlinks before or after moving or renaming it.

Instructions

List the notes linking to a file (to check before/after a move).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "vault_backlinks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only, non-mutating operation and the move-check framing adds useful workflow context, but it never explicitly states read-only behavior, scope (whole vault vs. local), or handling of broken links.

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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and the workflow hint in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose and use context adequately; the return shape is already documented elsewhere. Only the read-only guarantee and lookup scope remain unstated.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the single 'path' parameter. Saying 'linking to a file' tells the agent the path identifies the target file whose backlinks are returned, which is meaningful, but it omits format expectations such as relative vs. absolute path or whether an extension is required.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'List the notes linking to a file', which unambiguously identifies backlink lookup. It is clearly distinct from the sibling move/rename tools, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

The parenthetical '(to check before/after a move)' supplies concrete usage context, effectively routing the agent to this tool as the pre/post-flight check for vault_move_file, vault_rename, and vault_move_folder. No explicit exclusions or negative cases are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools