Find documents that link to a specific Outline wiki document to understand content relationships and references.
Find other documents linking to this document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| documentId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.
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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the core functionality immediately.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does at a high level but doesn't provide enough context about behavior, parameters, or results for an agent to use it effectively without additional trial-and-error.
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 description implies a 'documentId' parameter through 'this document', but doesn't explain what format it expects or where to get it. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description adds minimal semantic context beyond what's inferable from the schema. This meets the baseline for a single parameter tool but doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 verb 'find' and resource 'other documents linking to this document', making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'find_related' or 'get_document', but the specific focus on backlinks is reasonably distinct. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_related' or 'get_document'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. While the purpose is clear, there's no help for an agent deciding between this and other document-related tools in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.