Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Another bloated Obsidian MCP Server

Another bloated Obsidian MCP Server

by diegorv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_backups

Find saved backup versions of your Obsidian notes. Filter by a specific note to see its available restore points.

Instructions

List available backups. Can filter by specific 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": "list_backups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notePathNoFilter backups for a specific note
backupFolderNoFolder where backups are stored (default: .backups).backups

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only listing via 'List' and 'available', but does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior, return format, or whether backupFolder affects the listing. It is adequate but not rich.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description is mostly complete: it states the purpose and filtering capability, while the schema documents both parameters. Since there is no output schema, a brief mention of what the returned list contains would improve completeness, but it is not critical for a straightforward listing operation.

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%: both notePath and backupFolder have clear descriptions. The description's 'Can filter by specific note' restates notePath but adds no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List available backups.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_vaults and list_notes, and the filtering capability ('Can filter by specific note') adds scope.

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 described filtering option gives some usage context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the other backup-related siblings (create_note_backup, restore_backup, delete_old_backups) or mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is only implied by the tool name and sibling set.

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