Find which notes link to a given note to assess its connections, locate its MOC, or evaluate the impact of renaming or editing it.
Lists the notes pointing at the given note. Use it to gauge how connected a subject is, to find the MOC that indexes the note, or to weigh the impact of changing or renaming it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Vault-relative path, with `.md`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation, but it does not disclose the output shape, ordering, or whether only direct inbound links are returned. This is adequate for a simple tool but leaves some behavioral details unspecified.
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?
Two concise, purposeful sentences. The first defines the primary action, and the second adds valuable usage context without wordiness. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely complete: it states the resource, the behavior, and practical use cases. The lack of an output schema is the main gap, but the phrase 'Lists the notes' gives sufficient expectation of what the call returns for selection and invocation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the single `path` parameter. The description only refers to 'the given note' without adding additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists the notes pointing at the given note.' This clearly defines the backlinks functionality and distinguishes it from siblings like vault_get_note, vault_search, and vault_list, which serve different purposes.
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?
The description provides clear use cases: gauging connectedness, finding the MOC that indexes the note, and weighing the impact of changing or renaming it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide when this tool fits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.