Crawlgraph MCP

Outreach target finder

gap_outreach_targets

Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`my_domain`	Yes
`total_gaps`	Yes
`priority_targets`	Yes
`secondary_targets`	Yes
`authority_enriched`	Yes
`competitor_domains`	Yes
`platforms_filtered`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

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?