Find broken wikilinks in your Obsidian vault that point to missing notes. Return a list of sources and links to locate and resolve broken references.
Find all wikilinks in the vault that point to non-existent notes. data.items: [{source, link}].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vault | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey the output shape ('data.items: [{source, link}]') and the all-wikilinks scope, but it does not disclose behavior around vault resolution, invalid vault values, or whether the operation is safe/read-only, though the 'get' name implies it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is a somewhat fragment-like data shape note, but it is not wasteful; it loses a point only because it omits context around the only parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one optional parameter and no annotations, the description is not complete. It fails to explain the 'vault' parameter's meaning, defaults, or how to discover valid vault names, though the output schema does reduce the need to document return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only one parameter, 'vault', with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent is left to guess what values are valid, what null means, and whether this is a vault name, path, or ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Find all wikilinks in the vault that point to non-existent notes.' This clearly distinguishes it from related sibling tools like get_orphans_tool or get_backlinks_tool by naming the exact broken-link behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives. Sibling tools such as get_orphans_tool, get_link_graph_tool, and get_backlinks_tool cover related but different link-analysis cases, and the description does not mention any exclusion or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.