Crawlgraph MCP

Backlink lookup

backlinks

Read-onlyIdempotent

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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes
`cg_rank`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`returned`	Yes
`release_id`	Yes
`cg_authority`	Yes
`release_label`	Yes
`total_linking_domains`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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.

All Crawlgraph MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use consistent lowercase snake_case with noun phrases (backlinks, gap_analysis, gap_outreach_targets, releases), forming a clear and predictable pattern.

Tool Count4/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?