Knowledge Assistant MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether it returns a list of note titles or full content, if there are pagination limits, what happens if the note doesn't exist, or if there are performance considerations for large note collections.

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 perfectly concise at just one sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't include any unnecessary information.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns results. It doesn't explain what format the backlinks are returned in (titles, IDs, full notes), whether there are limitations, or what happens in edge cases. For a query tool with no structured output documentation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'note_title' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('all notes that link to a specific note'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like knowledge_related or knowledge_graph, which might also involve note relationships, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. With siblings like knowledge_related, knowledge_graph, and knowledge_search that might overlap in functionality, there's no indication of when this specific backlink-finding tool is appropriate or when other tools should be preferred.

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