get_backlinksList notes linking to a given Obsidian note to assess its references before editing or deleting, or to follow the knowledge graph backward.
List notes that link TO a given note (wikilinks, embeds and relative markdown links). Use before editing or deleting to understand what references it, or to follow the knowledge graph backwards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Vault-relative note path |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral detail about the link types included and the direction of links (incoming, not outgoing). This adds value beyond the structured data, though return format and pagination are not described.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by practical usage contexts. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint, the description explains the result (list of backlink notes), the link types included, and when to use it. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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?
Schema covers the single required 'path' parameter with description 'Vault-relative note path', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond referring to a given note, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States 'List notes that link TO a given note' with explicit link types (wikilinks, embeds, relative markdown links). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_notes and read_note by focusing on incoming references.
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?
Explicitly prescribes when to use it: 'before editing or deleting to understand what references it, or to follow the knowledge graph backwards.' It lacks when-not guidance or named alternatives, which would be needed for a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.