List notes that link to a specific note, returning each backlink's ID, title, and snippet. Requires ownership of the target note; returns errors if missing or unauthorized.
List notes that link to note_id, each with an id/title/snippet. Fails with 403 if note_id isn't owned by the caller, 404 if it doesn't exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: 403 when note_id isn't owned by the caller, 404 when it doesn't exist, plus the per-item return shape. It is missing whether this is purely read-only and any pagination/limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.
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 tight sentences: purpose and output shape first, error conditions second. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, everything front-loaded.
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-param read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, return fields, and failure modes adequately. Minor gaps (pagination, explicit read-only confirmation) remain, so it is slightly short of fully complete.
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 coverage is 0% and the single param has no schema description, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that note_id is the note being linked TO and adds an ownership precondition, which is meaningful but partial — no format/type detail beyond the schema's 'string'.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'List notes that link to note_id' — the incoming-link semantics distinguish it in substance from siblings like get_related_notes or get_note_graph. It also names the return fields (id/title/snippet). It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named (get_related_notes, get_note_graph, get_note are all plausible neighbors). Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'notes that link to note_id'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.