obsidian-local-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Index Git Coedits

index_git_coedits

Derive co-edit edges from a repository's git history to find files that change together without import links; enrich the dependency graph for impact analysis.

Instructions

Derive co_edit edges from this repo's git history: files that keep changing together, even without an import connecting them.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "index_git_coedits"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes
`vault`	No
`min_shared_commits`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully explains the semantics of the edges produced (files changing together without an import link), but omits whether it writes edges into the graph, whether it is idempotent, its cost on large histories, or any required permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited clarification; nothing is wasted. It is tight, though one extra clause on parameters could have been spent without bloat.

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 output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but the tool evidently mutates graph state and the description says nothing about that effect, and it leaves all three parameters undocumented. Adequate for purpose, incomplete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for three parameters and does not. In particular min_shared_commits (default 3) is a non-obvious threshold that is never explained, and vault versus repo scoping is left ambiguous.

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 ("Derive") and resource ("co_edit edges") and the source ("this repo's git history"), with a clarifying gloss on what co-edit means. It is distinguishable from siblings like index_repo, though it doesn't name any alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. The description implies the operation only through its subject matter and never tells the agent when this is preferable to index_repo, reindex_paths, or detect_divergence.

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