Obsidian MCP (pgvector + Ollama, self-hosted)

get_backlinks

Finds notes that link to a specified vault path. Reveals backlinks from projects, daily notes, and more by returning only resolved links. Limit results with a cap of 500.

Instructions

Notes that link TO path. Use this to discover what references a given note — projects citing a card, daily notes mentioning a person, etc.

Resolved links only (dangling references are not counted as backlinks).

Args: path: Vault-relative path to the target note (e.g. "Cards/Foo.md"). limit: Maximum results (default 50, hard cap 500).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`limit`	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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses a key trait beyond the schema: 'Resolved links only (dangling references are not counted as backlinks).' It also surfaces the hard cap of 500 for limit, which is not visible in the schema.

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 tight and front-loaded: core purpose, then use case, then behavioral caveat, then argument meanings. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given two simple parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the key resolved-links behavior. It could strengthen sibling differentiation, but nothing needed for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates. It explains path as 'Vault-relative path' with an example, and adds the hard cap of 500 for limit beyond the schema's default 50.

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?

Description opens with a specific, directional verb and resource: 'Notes that link TO `path`.' It gives concrete use cases (projects citing a card, daily notes mentioning a person) and the directionality clearly distinguishes backlinks from siblings like get_links.

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?

Explicitly frames when to use the tool ('Use this to discover what references a given note') with examples. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the TO-direction scoping makes the intended context unambiguous.

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