Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
obsidian-mcp

obsidian-mcp

by thoreinstein
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

obsidian_get_backlinks

Find all notes linking to a specific note by name, so you can trace references, see what points back, and navigate your vault's connections.

Instructions

Find all notes that link to a specific note.

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": {
      "file_name": "<file_name>"
    },
    "name": "obsidian_get_backlinks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_nameYesName of the note to find backlinks for (without extension)
vault_pathNoOptional vault path override

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not state that this is a read-only lookup, what happens when the file_name does not exist, or whether a vault must be set first. It adds essentially nothing beyond the operation's surface meaning.

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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is thin enough that some would call it under-specified rather than purely concise.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally say what a backlink result looks like (note names, paths, counts) and how a missing target behaves. The 100% schema coverage covers inputs, but the output side is left entirely unexplained.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (file_name, vault_path) are already fully documented in the schema, including the no-extension convention and the override semantics. The description adds no additional parameter detail; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Find) and resource (notes that link to a specific note), which maps unambiguously to backlinks. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling obsidian_get_links (outgoing links) or obsidian_get_broken_links, so an agent must infer the direction of the relationship.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (does the note need to exist, must a vault be set?), and no reference to the closely related obsidian_get_links sibling. Usage is only implied by the tool name and description.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools