Domain DA-PA Checker: Domain authority score & page authority score, spam score, backlink count.
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool available, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The agent will know exactly which tool to call since there is only one.
'get_v1' appears to be a generic versioned API endpoint name rather than a meaningful tool name for the domain. While there are no inconsistencies with only one tool, the name reveals nothing about its purpose, making it especially unhelpful within a broader tool ecosystem.
A single tool for a domain authority check is on the thin side, even for a narrow niche. The scope feels slightly underdelivered, and an agent would likely benefit from at least one additional tool (e.g., batch checking) to justify its existence as a separate server.
The single tool aggregates the core metrics (DA, PA, spam score, backlinks) into one call, covering the primary workflow of a domain authority checker. Only minor features like historical tracking or bulk lookup are missing, which feels like an acceptable gap for this narrow scope.
Target, Domain Authority Score, Page Authority Score, Spam Score, Total Backlinks Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose a per-call credit cost and implies a read-only metrics lookup, but it lacks authentication context, required-parameter expectations, failure behavior, or any clarification of return format.
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 short and includes relevant information, but the metric list and billing clause run together without clear punctuation ('Total Backlinks Billing per call: 1 Credits'). This hurts readability even though the overall length is appropriate.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the primary context. It lists the expected metrics and cost but does not specify the return contract, required input semantics, or boundary conditions, leaving significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke and parse results correctly.
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?
There is one parameter and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description only repeats 'Target' and does not state how the target should be formatted, whether it is required, or what value forms are accepted beyond what the schema title already shows.
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 lists domain metrics (Domain Authority Score, Page Authority Score, Spam Score, Total Backlinks) and a target, so the intended purpose can be inferred. However, there is no verb or action statement like 'returns' or 'retrieves', leaving the tool's exact purpose ambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool or how it compares to alternatives. The only extra guidance-like content is 'Billing per call: 1 Credits', which is a cost warning rather than a usage instruction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_v1Linkheft: 0-100 domain authority, web-graph rank and trend for any domains, from open data.
Linkheft: 0-100 domain authority, web-graph rank and trend for any domains, from open data.
Bulk backlink data: domain rank, referring domains, backlinks with anchors, spam score, dofollow.
Bulk domain authority: 0-100 score, web-graph rank, trend and Majestic links, 50 domains/call.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.