obsidian-local-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Path Between

path_between

Find the shortest connection between two nodes in any direction to answer how two things are related. Specify source and destination nodes to trace their relationship path.

Instructions

Shortest connection between two nodes through the graph (either direction), for "how are these two things related" questions.

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>"
    },
    "name": "path_between"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: traversal goes 'either direction' (undirected). However, it says nothing about behavior on no-path-found, the max_hops cutoff, or cost, leaving significant gaps for a graph traversal operation.

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 that states the operation first and the use case second, with no filler. Efficient and well-structured.

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 relieves the description of explaining return values, and the directionality note helps. But with 4 undocumented parameters (0% coverage) and no annotations, the definition is thin for a traversal tool whose max_hops bound shapes results.

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 would need to compensate, but it references only 'two nodes' generically. Key parameters like vault and especially max_hops (default 6, a critical traversal bound) are not explained at all.

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?

The description names a specific operation (shortest connection between two nodes) and the resource (the graph), making the tool's output clear at a glance. It implicitly distinguishes itself from adjacency tools like neighbors and impact_of, though it never explicitly names a sibling it is not.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The clause 'for "how are these two things related" questions' gives a concrete scenario that selects this tool over alternatives. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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