DevFlow MCP Server

wiki_backlinks

Discover all assets linking to a specific ADR or pattern by providing its asset type and ID. Perform reverse lookups to identify referencing docs, reviews, or flows.

Instructions

Find all assets that link TO a given asset (reverse lookup). Useful to see where an ADR or Pattern is referenced.

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": {
      "assetType": "<assetType>",
      "assetId": "<assetId>"
    },
    "name": "wiki_backlinks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`assetId`	Yes
`assetType`	Yes	flow \| doc_page \| review \| release

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.35.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description conveys a read-only operation but lacks details on whether all backlinks are returned, pagination, or data freshness. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, directly to the point. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and a simple 2-param input, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose but omits return value details. For a low-complexity tool, this is acceptable but could be more complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Only assetType has a description in the schema (listing allowed values), but assetId is left undocumented. The tool description does not explain assetId format or provenance, leaving a gap for agents.

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 defines the tool as a reverse lookup to find assets linking to a given asset, and provides concrete examples (ADRs, Patterns). It distinguishes itself from siblings like wiki_graph_neighbors and search.

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 indicates usefulness for seeing where an ADR or Pattern is referenced, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server