margins-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_backlinks

Read-only

Retrieve all Obsidian vault pages that contain backlinks to a given slug or filename, including wikilinks and relative .md links.

Instructions

Find vault pages that link to a target slug or filename. Matches [[wikilinks]] and relative .md links.

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "get_backlinks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Default 25.
`target`	Yes	Slug or filename without extension.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.15.3Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description correctly adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the link matching behavior. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context about what links are matched, though it could further clarify the output format.

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 consists of two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately provides specific details about link types. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple backlink lookup tool with clear annotations and schema, the description covers the main functionality. However, the lack of an output schema and detailed information about what specifically is returned (e.g., page paths or titles) leaves some minor gaps. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters described adequately in the schema. The description adds minimal new meaning beyond repeating the schema descriptions ('Default 25.' for limit, and 'Slug or filename without extension' for target). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Find' and resource 'vault pages that link to a target slug or filename', and specifies the link types matched ([[wikilinks]] and relative .md links). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_vault or read_page.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for finding backlinks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. However, the context is clear: it's for backlink discovery.

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