Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Obsidian MCP Extended

Obsidian MCP Extended

by aleksakarac
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

find_broken_links_tool

Identify broken links in your Obsidian vault or a specific directory to fix references after renaming or deleting notes.

Instructions

Find all broken links in the vault or a specific directory.

When to use:

  • After renaming or deleting notes

  • Regular vault maintenance

  • Before reorganizing folder structure

  • Cleaning up after imports

When NOT to use:

  • Checking links in a single note (use get_outgoing_links with check_validity)

  • Finding backlinks (use get_backlinks)

Returns: All broken links grouped by source note

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": "find_broken_links_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
directoryNoSpecific directory to check (optional, defaults to entire vault)
ctxNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states the return format but does not disclose potential side effects, performance implications, or scope limitations (e.g., external links). Lacks explicit safety cues for a scanning tool.

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?

Extremely concise with clear sections (purpose, when to use, when not to use, returns). No redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers usage scenarios and return format. Lacks details on how broken links are detected (internal vs external) and any performance notes, but is fairly complete for a simple scanning tool given no output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% (ctx parameter undocumented in schema and description). Description adds no new parameter information beyond the schema's directory description. Does not compensate for the undocumented ctx parameter.

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 clearly states it finds all broken links in the vault or a directory, using specific verbs and resources. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_outgoing_links and get_backlinks by listing when not to use them.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (e.g., after renaming notes, regular maintenance) and when-not-to-use with alternative tool names, giving clear context for selection.

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