Skip to main content
Glama
aliasunder

Vault Cortex Obsidian MCP Server

Get Backlinks

vault_get_backlinks
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find all notes and canvases that link to a given note or canvas — captures [[wikilinks]], markdown, ![[embeds]], wikilinks inside frontmatter properties (e.g. related:), and canvas cards that embed the file.

Instructions

Find all notes and canvases that link to a given note or canvas — captures [[wikilinks]], markdown, ![[embeds]], wikilinks inside frontmatter properties (e.g. related:), and canvas cards that embed the file. Heading anchors ([[note#heading]]) and aliases ([[note|alias]]) resolve as backlinks to the base note. Links inside code blocks are ignored; a note linking to itself appears in its own backlinks.

Example: vault_get_backlinks({ path: "Projects/vault-cortex.md" }) Example: vault_get_backlinks({ path: "Diagrams/architecture.canvas" })

When to use: Understanding what references a note or canvas, assessing its connectivity before editing or deleting, or finding related notes via the graph. For outgoing links (what a note links TO), use vault_get_outgoing_links. To find notes nothing else links to, use vault_find_orphans.

Parameters:

  • path: exact vault-relative path including .md or .canvas extension, case-sensitive.

Returns: JSON with path (the queried note or canvas), backlinks (array of { path, title, bytes } sorted by title), and count. Backlink sources may be notes (.md) or canvas files (.canvas).

Errors:

  • "path must end in …" — add the .md or .canvas extension

  • A path nothing links to returns an empty result (count 0), not an error — if you expected links, find valid paths with vault_search, vault_list_notes, or vault_list_files.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesExact vault-relative path including .md or .canvas extension (e.g. "Projects/vault-cortex.md"). Case-sensitive.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.36.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Exact vault-relative path including .md extension (e.g. \"Projects/vault-cortex.md\"). Case-sensitive."New value: +"Exact vault-relative path including .md or .canvas extension (e.g. \"Projects/vault-cortex.md\"). Case-sensitive."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.23.6
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Vault-relative path to the note (e.g. \"Projects/vault-cortex.md\")"New value: +"Exact vault-relative path including .md extension (e.g. \"Projects/vault-cortex.md\"). Case-sensitive."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description is free to add deeper semantics: code-block links are ignored, self-links appear in their own results, and heading anchors/aliases resolve to the base note. It also documents the exact error string and the empty-result-not-error behavior, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then examples, when-to-use, parameter, return, and error sections in a scannable order. Despite its length, every block adds distinct value and nothing is redundant filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Although no output schema exists, the description fully specifies the return shape (path, backlinks array of {path,title,bytes} sorted by title, count), the valid source file types, and the failure modes. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret the tool is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and already documents the single path parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description lifts this slightly by tying the extension requirement to a specific error message and clarifying the .md/.canvas distinction in context.

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?

States a specific verb (find) plus resource (notes/canvases that link to a target) and enumerates exactly what counts as a backlink. It also names the outgoing-links sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from vault_get_outgoing_links without opening either schema.

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?

The 'When to use' block gives three concrete scenarios (connectivity assessment before editing/deleting, graph exploration, understanding references) and explicitly redirects to vault_get_outgoing_links and vault_find_orphans for the adjacent tasks.

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