mcp-llm-wiki

Page links

wiki_backlinks

Read-only

Identify inbound, outbound, and dead links for any page. Use before deleting, moving, or merging to maintain link integrity.

Instructions

Show which pages link to this page (inbound), where it links (outbound), and which of its links are dead. Call before delete, move, or merge.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "wiki_backlinks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path relative to the wiki root.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations by mentioning the dead-link check and framing the tool as a pre-mutation safety check. It does not describe output format or edge cases, but with annotations covering the core safety profile, this is a minor gap.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the full functional scope; the second provides the critical usage warning. Everything earns its place and is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool shows (inbound, outbound, dead links) and when to call it. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit listing of the three output categories.

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?

There is only one parameter, path, and its schema description ('Path relative to the wiki root.') is already complete. The tool description adds no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and names the exact resource: inbound links, outbound links, and dead links for a given page. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like wiki_read_page or wiki_search by focusing specifically on link relationships.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call before delete, move, or merge.' This directly tells an agent the operational context and makes the tool's purpose actionable without needing to infer from sibling tool names.

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

Deploy Server