get_outgoingRetrieve all outgoing links from a specified note by providing its note ID. Use this to map a note's references and navigate related content within your markdown vault.
[[Link]] targets a note points to.
| 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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the result relates to ([[Link]] targets) and does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what shape the output takes, or how edge cases like missing notes are handled.
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 very short and contains no fluff, which is appropriate for a simple getter tool. However, the phrasing is grammatically awkward and would benefit from a clearer subject-verb structure.
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?
The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the single required parameter is simple. Still, without annotations and without an explicit statement that note_id identifies the note to inspect, the description is minimally viable rather than 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?
The schema provides only a required note_id string with zero description coverage. The description implicitly connects 'a note' to the note_id parameter, suggesting the caller must identify the source note, but it never names the parameter or explains what counts as a valid note_id.
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 identifies the resource as the [[Link]] targets that a note points to, which clearly conveys the concept of outgoing links. It is not a tautology and the meaning is recoverable, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_backlinks or search_notes. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or mention of sibling tools, so the agent must infer the usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.