get_backlinksFind which notes link to a given note via [[links]], revealing incoming references and helping trace connections within a markdown vault.
Notes linking to this one via [[links]].
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (resolving inbound wiki-links) but does not mention response contents, sorting, deduplication, or any edge cases. The output schema may compensate for return-value details, but the description alone is thin.
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 extremely concise, with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and the structure is appropriate for such a simple tool.
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 one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description conveys the essential input and function. It is nearly complete, though it would benefit from explicitly identifying note_id and contrasting with get_outgoing.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explicitly map note_id to the target note. The phrase 'this one' only vaguely references the parameter and does not clearly explain the expected ID format or role, leaving the single parameter under-documented.
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 that the tool returns notes linking to a target note via [[wikilinks]]. It implies an inbound-link operation that contrasts with get_outgoing, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_outgoing or other note-lookup tools. The only contextual hint is the phrase 'linking to this one,' which implies inbound links, but no exclusions or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.