Slipbox MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

slipbox_create_link

Create a semantic link between two notes, choosing a link type and optional description to define their relationship. Supports bidirectional links for important connections.

Instructions

Create a semantic link between two notes.

Links are directional: source -> target. Use bidirectional=true for important relationships (automatically creates inverse link type).

Link Types:

reference: Generic "see also" connection
extends: Source builds upon target (inverse: extended_by)
refines: Source clarifies or improves target (inverse: refined_by)
contradicts: Source presents opposing view (inverse: contradicted_by)
questions: Source raises questions about target (inverse: questioned_by)
supports: Source provides evidence for target (inverse: supported_by)
related: Loose thematic connection (symmetric)

Best Practices:

Always add description explaining WHY notes are linked
Use bidirectional=true for substantive relationships
Create links immediately after creating notes

Args: source_id: ID of the source note (the note doing the linking) target_id: ID of the target note (the note being linked to) link_type: One of reference/extends/refines/contradicts/questions/supports/related description: Brief explanation of the relationship bidirectional: If true, creates inverse link from target to source

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`link_type`	No	reference
`source_id`	Yes
`target_id`	Yes
`description`	No
`bidirectional`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.4Sep 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "title": "Result",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "title": "slipbox_create_linkOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains directionality (source -> target), the automatic inverse link when bidirectional=true, and enumerates all link types with their inverses. This covers core behavior well, though it omits details about error handling or note existence validation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with sections for purpose, link types, best practices, and args. It is fairly long but every sentence is informative and avoids redundancy, making it easy to parse.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

It covers all essential details for correct invocation: direction, link types, bidirectional behavior, parameter meanings, and best practices. The existence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. It lacks edge-case details (e.g., duplicate links), but that is not critical.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% (schema only gives types and defaults), but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter, including the valid values for link_type and the meaning of bidirectional. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: creating a semantic link between two notes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like slipbox_delete_link and slipbox_get_linked_notes by focusing on the create operation, and it adds nuance with directionality and link type semantics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides best practices (e.g., 'Create links immediately after creating notes') and explains when to use bidirectional=true, giving clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like slipbox_remove_link or slipbox_get_linked_notes, which is a minor gap.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.