Retrieve typed relationships authored on a Markdown knowledge item by IRI or slug.
Return the typed Links authored on one item.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "links"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iri | No | ||
| slug | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that: no note on return shape, ordering, pagination, or what happens when neither iri nor slug is supplied. 'Authored on one item' hints at a linkage semantic but is not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. Terse, but arguably under-specified rather than over-written, and it wastes nothing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-param read tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description should at least identify how the item is addressed and what a Link looks like. As written it leaves both the parameter role and the returned structure unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the param burden, and it does not. It never explains what iri or slug mean, whether one identifies the source item, or what happens when both are omitted (required is empty).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
It states a specific verb (Return) and resource (typed Links authored on one item), which is more informative than a bare name. However, it leaves key terms undefined — what a 'typed Link' is, and what 'one item' means given the params are iri/slug — and offers no differentiation from siblings like read or search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as read or search. The agent must guess when this tool is preferable to the other retrieval-oriented siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.