Another bloated Obsidian MCP Server

by diegorv

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

delete_old_backups

Remove outdated backup versions in Obsidian vaults, keeping only the most recent per note to free up space.

Instructions

Delete old backups, keeping only the most recent ones per 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": "delete_old_backups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dryRun`	No	If true, only report what would be deleted without actually deleting
`keepLast`	No	Number of recent backups to keep per note (default: 5)
`backupFolder`	No	Folder where backups are stored (default: .backups)	.backups

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.3.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it implies destructiveness via 'Delete', it does not explicitly state that deletions are permanent or irreversible, nor does it mention the dryRun safety mechanism described in the schema. The per-note retention rule is useful but lacks cautionary context.

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 a single focused sentence with no redundant wording. It leads with the action verb and delivers the core purpose concisely.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It lacks detail on execution behavior, safety mechanisms (beyond schema), error conditions, and relationship to backup management workflows, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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 provides complete descriptions and defaults for all 3 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds minimal meaning beyond a high-level reference to retention policy, which aligns with the keepLast parameter but does not explain how it works in practice.

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 the verb 'Delete' and the resource 'old backups', with the qualifier 'keeping only the most recent ones per note'. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_note_backup, list_backups, and restore_backup, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical cleanup workflows, or interactions with sibling tools like list_backups or restore_backup.

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