Obsidian MCP (pgvector + Ollama, self-hosted)

get_links

Lists outgoing links from a note, including broken ones, to reveal dependencies and missing notes. Returns document-order links with a limit and truncation flag so partial pages are identifiable.

Instructions

Outgoing links from path — both resolved and dangling.

Useful for "what does this note depend on?" or finding broken references that need follow-up notes.

The result carries a truncated field. truncated: true means this note holds more links than the indexer's per-note cap and the list is the first N in document order only — treat it as incomplete rather than as the note's full outgoing-link set.

Links come back in document order and are capped by limit; when more rows exist the result says how many of them were persisted, so a partial page is never read as the whole set. limit raises the page up to a hard cap of 500 — this tool has no paging beyond that, so a note with more than 500 link rows can only be read in full from the note itself.

Each row's link text is clipped to 120 characters.

Args: path: Vault-relative path to the source note. limit: Maximum links returned (default 100, 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
```

Changed1 schema field changedv0.8.1Sep 16, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / limit

Added value: +{
+  "default": 100,
+  "title": "Limit",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

First observedMay 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Since annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint) are not provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job of detailing the `truncated` field, indicating that results may be incomplete when exceeding the indexer's per-note cap. It also explains the hard cap of 500 on `limit` and the lack of paging, plus the 120-character clipping of link text. This is exemplary behavioral transparency, though it could be even stronger if it noted the non-destructive nature, but it's a read-only operation by context.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: it opens with the core function, then provides use cases, then explains important caveats (truncation, caps, clipping). Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the complexity, covering multiple behavioral details while remaining readable. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, mainly read-only) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the main behavioral caveats: truncation, hard cap, no paging, and text clipping. The output schema likely documents the return structure, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. An agent has enough information to call this tool correctly without surprises.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema provides only names (path, limit) with minimal descriptions (none in the schema properties, only titles). The description adds crucial semantics: 'path' is vault-relative, and 'limit' controls the maximum links returned with a default and hard cap. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is strong, but it could also clarify the type of path (e.g., must be existing note) and the effect of limit on pagination. The description does add meaning beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieves outgoing links from a given path, including resolved and dangling links. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('links'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_backlinks (incoming links) by focusing on outgoing dependency links. The context about 'what does this note depend on?' makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 description provides useful use cases ('what does this note depend on?' or finding broken references), giving clear context on when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the distinct purpose from siblings (e.g., get_backlinks) is implied. This is slightly above average but lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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