obsidian-local-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Clear Graph

clear_graph

Wipe all nodes and edges for an Obsidian vault to reset its dependency graph. Irreversible, so set confirm=True to proceed.

Instructions

Wipe every node and edge for a vault. Irreversible; requires confirm=True.

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": "clear_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vault`	No
`confirm`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most important traits: the operation is irreversible and it requires confirm=True. It stops short of covering auth/permissions, what happens to a null vault, or any confirmation of the response, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, no waste, and the destructive scope plus irreversibility are front-loaded ahead of the confirm gate. Every clause earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but the description leaves a meaningful gap for a destructive, unannotated tool: the semantics of a null/missing vault (default vault vs. none) are undefined, which directly affects whether the call does anything.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It explains 'confirm' (must be True) but says nothing about 'vault', which is nullable with default null — leaving the critical question of which vault gets wiped (default? all?) completely unresolved.

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 ('wipe') and scope ('every node and edge for a vault'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_node, delete_edge, and archive_note that operate on single entities. An agent can tell instantly that this is a full-graph destruction tool.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive scope, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g. 'use delete_node for a single node') are given. An agent must infer that this is a last-resort, whole-vault operation.

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