obsidian-local-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Delete Edge

delete_edge

Remove a single edge from the dependency graph by its source, destination, and type key to correct or update relationships.

Instructions

Remove one edge by its (src, dst, type) key.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "src": "<src>",
      "dst": "<dst>",
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "delete_edge"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dst`	Yes
`src`	Yes
`type`	Yes
`vault`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the operation itself. It does not say what happens if the edge does not exist, whether the operation is idempotent, whether it cascade-deletes adjacent structure, or whether special permissions are needed. For a destructive mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single sentence with no waste that front-loads the verb and the resource. Nothing redundant is present.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but as a destructive operation with no annotations the description should say more about failure modes and side effects. What exists is coherent but thin for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by framing (src, dst, type) as the identifying key — semantics the bare string types do not convey. However, the fourth parameter 'vault' goes unmentioned, and there is no indication of expected formats (node IDs vs. names) for src/dst/type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('one edge') plus the composite key that identifies it, which is more precise than the bare tool name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as delete_node or upsert_edge, but 'edge' plus 'remove' is unambiguous against them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this rather than delete_node, upsert_edge, or clear_graph. The description only says what it does, leaving the agent to infer that this is the single-edge deletion path versus clear_graph or delete_node.

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