markdown-vault-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

find_backlinks

Find all notes that link to a specified note in the vault. Provide the note's vault path to retrieve a list of linking notes.

Instructions

Find all notes that link to the specified note.

Args: note_path: Path to the note relative to vault root

Returns: Newline-separated list of notes linking to this note, or message if none

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": {
      "note_path": "<note_path>"
    },
    "name": "find_backlinks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It does disclose the return format (newline-separated list) and the no-results behavior, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, error cases like a nonexistent note_path, or any other side effects.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise Args and Returns sections. Every element serves a clear function with no redundant filler.

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-style tool, the description covers purpose, input semantics, and output format. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values further. Minor gaps include unspecified behavior when the target note does not exist or when note_path includes an extension.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema only declares note_path as a required string, so the description adds important meaning by defining it as 'Path to the note relative to vault root.' This compensates well for the 0% schema description coverage, though it omits details like file extension or exact matching behavior.

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 states a specific action ('Find all notes that link to the specified note') and clearly identifies the resource and direction of linking. It naturally distinguishes this tool from the sibling find_outgoing_links by specifying inbound links.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as find_outgoing_links, search_notes, or read_note. The intended use is only implied by the purpose statement, with no when-not-to-use or alternative routing.

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