Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp

obsidian-mcp

by ZethicTech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_backlinks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all notes linking to a given note. Filter by path, show occurrence counts, and choose output format (text, JSON, TSV, CSV).

Instructions

List all notes that link to the specified note (incoming links).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_backlinks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoNote name (wikilink-style resolution)
pathNoExact path from vault root
countsNoShow occurrence counts
totalNoShow only the total count
formatNoOutput format

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.7

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond clarifying 'incoming links'. It does not detail behavior for edge cases like no backlinks or parameter interaction.

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?

A single 10-word sentence, efficiently front-loaded with key information. No redundant or extraneous 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?

Given 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers core purpose. Minor gaps remain: no guidance on parameter precedence (file vs path) or output format details, but overall adequate for a simple read tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already described. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 description states the verb 'list' and the resource 'all notes that link to the specified note (incoming links)', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_links (outgoing links).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for retrieving incoming links but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_links or search. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance provided.

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