markdown-vault-mcp

Outlinks

get_outlinks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find all outbound links from a document, including broken-link flags, to understand what it references.

Instructions

Find all links FROM the given document to other documents (outlinks).

Use this to see what a document references. For a full picture of a note's place in the vault, use 'get_context' instead of calling this separately. Call 'get_outlinks' directly when you only need the outbound link list. Each result includes an 'exists' flag — False means the link is broken (the target is missing from the vault).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	Relative path of the source document (e.g. "notes/topic.md"). Case-sensitive.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of outlinks to return. Omitted (the default) returns all.
`wait_for_pending_writes`	No	Wait for recent index writes. On timeout, answer from the current index with _meta.index_stale=true. Default false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv5.0.0Sep 15, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / wait_for_pending_writes / description

Previous value: -"When True, wait until your recent\ndocument mutations have been applied to the\nindex before answering, so the results reflect those changes.\nUse it right after modifying notes when this read must see\nthem (e.g. right after a document mutation whose\neffect this read should reflect). Default\nFalse answers immediately from the current index — almost\nalways already up to date; inspect the response's\n``_meta.index_stale`` field to tell whether a write was still\nin flight. Bounded by a server timeout (default 60s); on\ntimeout it answers from the current index rather than waiting\nlonger."New value: +"Wait for recent index writes. On timeout, answer from the current index with _meta.index_stale=true. Default false."

Changed1 schema field changedv4.0.0Aug 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / wait_for_pending_writes / description

Previous value: -"When True, wait until your recent\nwrite/edit/delete/rename operations have been applied to the\nindex before answering, so the results reflect those changes.\nUse it right after modifying notes when this read must see\nthem (e.g. right after a write/edit/delete/rename whose\neffect this read should reflect). Default\nFalse answers immediately from the current index — almost\nalways already up to date; inspect the response's\n``_meta.index_stale`` field to tell whether a write was still\nin flight. Bounded by a server timeout (default 60s); on\ntimeout it answers from the current index rather than waiting\nlonger."New value: +"When True, wait until your recent\ndocument mutations have been applied to the\nindex before answering, so the results reflect those changes.\nUse it right after modifying notes when this read must see\nthem (e.g. right after a document mutation whose\neffect this read should reflect). Default\nFalse answers immediately from the current index — almost\nalways already up to date; inspect the response's\n``_meta.index_stale`` field to tell whether a write was still\nin flight. Bounded by a server timeout (default 60s); on\ntimeout it answers from the current index rather than waiting\nlonger."

First observedv3.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds value by disclosing that 'Each result includes an exists flag — False means the link is broken (the target is missing from the vault).' This is a behavioral trait not present in the schema or annotations, informing the agent about broken-link detection. The description does not contradict any annotations, and it enriches the behavioral picture beyond the structured metadata.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. It immediately states what the tool does, then provides usage guidance and a key output detail. Every sentence earns its place—no filler or redundancy. The structure is efficient and scannable, ideal for an agent parsing it quickly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (3 parameters, all schema-documented), the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It covers the primary use case, the alternative tool for richer context, and a critical output behavior (exists flag). There is no missing information an agent would need to call this tool correctly. The description is sufficient on its own.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all three parameters (path, limit, wait_for_pending_writes) are already fully documented in the input schema with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information, which is acceptable because the schema carries the burden. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high and the description does not need to compensate. It doesn't add extra meaning beyond the schema, so a 3 is warranted.

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 opens with a precise statement of function: 'Find all links FROM the given document to other documents (outlinks).' This gives a clear verb+resource combination. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_context by noting that get_context provides a 'full picture of a note's place in the vault,' while this tool is specifically for the outbound link list. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separates it from related tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit guidance: 'For a full picture of a note's place in the vault, use get_context instead of calling this separately. Call get_outlinks directly when you only need the outbound link list.' This clearly states both when to use this tool and when to prefer an alternative. The condition for direct use is specific, making it easy for an agent to decide.

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