Find similar notes to link from a note by semantic similarity, returning only unlinked candidates.
Suggest links for a note based on semantic similarity.
Finds similar notes that are not already linked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | note path | |
| limit | No | maximum number of suggestions | |
| min_similarity | No | minimum similarity score |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys the tool's core behavior (suggesting links, excluding already-linked notes) but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies anything) or output format. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.
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?
The description is concise, consisting of two clear sentences with no redundant information. It effectively communicates the tool's function in a minimal, well-structured manner.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and select it appropriately. However, it omits details about the returned data structure or any edge-case behavior, which slightly reduces completeness.
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?
The schema covers all three parameters (path, limit, min_similarity) with basic descriptions, but the tool description adds no additional meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not enhance understanding of the parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: suggesting links for a note based on semantic similarity, and specifies that it finds notes not already linked. This distinguishes it from the sibling find_similar_notes which likely returns similar notes without the link-suggestion focus.
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 implies usage (when you need link suggestions based on semantic similarity) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer this over similar tools like find_similar_notes or search_duplicates. The guidance is implicit rather than direct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.