MCP server for the CrawlGraph backlink-intelligence API. Gives any MCP client - Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Zed, Windsurf - backlink lookups and competitor gap analysis built on the public Common Crawl webgraph (4.4B edges, 120M domains).
Look up referring domains (backlinks) for a single target domain from the Common Crawl webgraph. Returns each linking domain with host count and CrawlGraph authority score, plus the target's own authority/rank. Costs one backlinks call against the monthly quota (1,000/mo on lifetime).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sort | No | 'authority' (default) or 'hosts'. | |
| limit | No | Max rows (1..10000, default 1000). | |
| domain | Yes | Target domain, e.g. 'stripe.com'. | |
| release_id | No | Common Crawl release id (defaults to latest; see the releases tool). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | |
| cg_rank | Yes | |
| results | Yes | |
| returned | Yes | |
| release_id | Yes | |
| cg_authority | Yes | |
| release_label | Yes | |
| total_linking_domains | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the critical quota usage detail (1,000/mo) and data source (Common Crawl webgraph), providing extra behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Extremely concise: two sentences. First sentence front-loads purpose and output, second adds quota info. No filler.
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?
With good annotations, full schema, and output schema, the description covers purpose, source, output summary, and quota. Missing a note on default sort or pagination, but otherwise very complete.
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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it mainly describes output behavior.
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 looks up referring domains for a single target domain from Common Crawl, specifying the output (linking domain, host count, authority score, target authority/rank). This distinguishes it from siblings like gap_analysis or releases.
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 mentions quota cost but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like gap_analysis or releases. It implies use for backlink data but lacks exclusion criteria or comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run a competitor backlink gap analysis: find domains that link to one or more of your competitors but NOT to you. Submits an async job and polls until done (usually 5-30s). Returns every gap with found_on listing which competitors each domain links to. Costs one gap job against the monthly quota (50/mo on lifetime).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| my_domain | Yes | Your domain. | |
| competitor_domains | Yes | 1 to 5 competitor domains. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| gaps | Yes | |
| my_domain | Yes | |
| total_gaps | Yes | |
| competitor_domains | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: async job with polling (5-30s), return format with 'found_on' listing, and quota limits (50/month). Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description aligns without contradiction.
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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, followed by operational details and return info. No unnecessary words.
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 the presence of an output schema (context signals indicate true), the description adequately covers return format and execution behavior. Quota and async details are included. Slight improvement could mention output schema existence or pagination, but overall complete.
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 100%, with both parameters (my_domain, competitor_domains) well-described in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-specific semantics, so baseline score of 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?
The description clearly states the tool performs a competitor backlink gap analysis, specifically finding domains linking to competitors but not to the user's domain. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'backlinks' and 'gap_outreach_targets' by specifying the unique gap analysis functionality.
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 explains when to use the tool (to find linking domains) and provides context on async job execution and quota costs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, though the sibling list implies distinct use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The warm-outreach play. Runs a gap analysis, then ranks results: PRIORITY = domains linking to ALL your competitors but not you (publishers who cover your whole space and have never heard of you), SECONDARY = domains linking to 2+ competitors. Platform/CDN noise is filtered, top N priority targets are scored by authority. Use 2-3 competitors. Costs one gap job + one backlinks call per enriched target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| my_domain | Yes | Your domain. | |
| enrich_top | No | Authority-score the top N priority targets. Default 10; each costs one backlinks call. 0 disables. | |
| include_platforms | No | Keep platform/CDN/social domains in the list. Default false. | |
| competitor_domains | Yes | 2 to 5 competitor domains (2-3 recommended). |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| my_domain | Yes | |
| total_gaps | Yes | |
| priority_targets | Yes | |
| secondary_targets | Yes | |
| authority_enriched | Yes | |
| competitor_domains | Yes | |
| platforms_filtered | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses costs ('one gap job + one backlinks call per enriched target'), noise filtering, and ranking behavior. Adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.) by detailing operational impact.
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?
Concise 5 sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, each sentence adds unique value. No redundancy or filler.
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?
Covers purpose, ranking logic, costs, filtering, and parameter specifics. With output schema existing, no need to detail return values. Complete for the tool's complexity.
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 all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds minor extra context (e.g., cost per enrich_top, default for include_platforms), but not substantial beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states it finds outreach targets based on gap analysis, ranking priority and secondary domains. Distinct from sibling tools (backlinks, gap_analysis, releases) by combining both analyses.
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 says 'Use 2-3 competitors' and describes the ranking logic, giving clear context. Does not include explicit when-not-to-use, but the purpose is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the Common Crawl releases the API can query. Does not count against any quota. Use a release id with the backlinks tool to query a specific snapshot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| releases | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that it does not count against quota, which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no superfluous words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema. The description fully explains purpose, quota impact, and how to use the output with a sibling tool. Complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed since there are no parameters.
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 lists Common Crawl releases the API can query, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning using a release id with the backlinks tool.
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 states it does not count against quota, and advises to use a release id with the backlinks tool to query a specific snapshot, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct, non-overlapping purpose: backlinks fetches backlinks for a domain, gap_analysis finds competitor gaps, gap_outreach_targets enriches gaps with prioritization, and releases lists available snapshots. No ambiguity.
All tool names use consistent lowercase snake_case with noun phrases (backlinks, gap_analysis, gap_outreach_targets, releases), forming a clear and predictable pattern.
With 4 tools, the set is lean but well-scoped for the niche of backlink gap analysis. The count is appropriate given the monthly quota constraints and focused domain.
The toolset covers the end-to-end workflow: fetching backlinks, running gap analysis, and prioritizing outreach targets, plus listing available data releases. Minor omission like a standalone authority score tool is not critical for the main use case.