Skip to main content
Glama

hjarni

by com.hjarni
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

links-manage

DestructiveIdempotent

Create or remove a bidirectional link between two notes. Required: action ('link'|'unlink'), source_note_id (integer), target_note_id (integer). Prefer wiki-link syntax [[id:Title]] in note bodies for inline linking — use this tool for programmatic links without modifying body text. Unlinking is destructive and cannot be undone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction: 'link' to create a link, 'unlink' to remove it (required)
source_note_idYesFirst note ID (required)
target_note_idYesSecond note ID (required)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / action / description
      Previous value: -"Action: 'link' to create a link, 'unlink' to remove it"New value: +"Action: 'link' to create a link, 'unlink' to remove it (required)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / source_note_id / description
      Previous value: -"First note ID"New value: +"First note ID (required)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / target_note_id / description
      Previous value: -"Second note ID"New value: +"Second note ID (required)"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description aligns with annotations (destructiveHint=true), explicitly stating unlinking is destructive and irreversible. Adds context that it does not modify body text.

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?

Three short, focused sentences. No redundancy, front-loaded with core action.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage context, parameter requirements, and safety warnings.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description repeats required parameters and enum values but adds minimal new semantic value 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?

Clearly states the tool creates or removes bidirectional links between notes. Differentiates from sibling tools like tags-manage by specifying the action on links.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly advises preferring wiki-link syntax for inline linking and reserves this tool for programmatic links without body modification. Also warns about destructive unlink behavior.

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

All hjarni toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources