Obsidian MCP (pgvector + Ollama, self-hosted)

find_orphans

Identify notes with no incoming or outgoing links to reveal disconnected content and guide vault cleanup.

Instructions

Notes with zero incoming AND zero outgoing resolved links — useful for vault hygiene ("what's disconnected?") and cleanup decisions.

Args: folder: Optional vault-relative folder prefix to scope the search (e.g. "Cards/"). limit: Maximum results (default 50, hard cap 500).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`folder`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.2Sep 24, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedMay 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it explains the core filtering behavior, including the 'resolved links' nuance and the AND condition on incoming/outgoing links. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the query language and output schema make side effects unlikely.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence definition plus use case, followed by a concise Args list. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, when to use it, and the parameter semantics. Nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The Args section fully documents both parameters despite 0% schema coverage: folder's vault-relative prefix semantics with an example, and limit's default and hard cap. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 precisely defines the result set: notes with zero incoming AND zero outgoing resolved links. It clearly identifies the resource and the orphan criterion, though it relies on the tool name for the verb and does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling link tools.

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 'useful for vault hygiene and cleanup decisions' phrase gives clear context for when to call it. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is evident.

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