Retrieve all built or logged backlinks from the link library, with an optional limit to control results. Use to audit placements and review campaign history.
Every link built or logged on this machine.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only defines inclusion criteria ('built or logged on this machine') and does not mention read-only behavior, sorting, pagination, defaults, or error cases.
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 text is short and has no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. A tool description needs enough substance to guide selection and invocation; a fragmentary statement is not appropriately sized.
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-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description still leaves out essential context: whether this is a read-only list, how limit behaves, and what the returned links actually look like. The statement is too sparse to support confident invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the 'limit' parameter. It does not mention limit at all, leaving default behavior, maximum values, and ordering unclear.
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 'every link built or logged on this machine,' which conveys scope and content, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'retrieves.' It also does not differentiate this tool from siblings like search_sites or log_link.
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 alternatives. The description simply states what is included, without stating when to choose list_results over search_sites or other sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.