backlink_gapFind pages that link to the named competitors but not to you, classified by whether a link is realistically winnable and why. Competitors are excluded from their own results: a competitor is never a prospect.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| competitors | No | Up to five competitor domains. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it adds useful behavior: results are classified by winnability and rationale, and competitors are explicitly excluded from their own results. The read-only nature is implied by 'Find', though side effects, auth, and rate limits are not addressed.
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 tightly worded sentences front-load the core function and then add an important edge-case rule. No filler or redundancy; every clause contributes meaning.
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?
For two simple parameters, the main invocation is inferable, and the winnability classification gives some sense of return content. However, with no output schema, the description does not specify the output shape or define 'realistically winnable', and it omits usage context relative to sibling tools.
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 50%: only competitors has a schema description, and the description maps 'you' to the domain parameter. It clarifies that competitors are the source of gap analysis, but it adds no format, example, or requirement details for domain beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Find') and names the exact resource: pages linking to competitors but not to the user's domain. It also describes the unique output classification (winnable and why), which separates it from siblings like discover_competitors and find_prospects.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discover_competitors or find_prospects. The description implies a backlink-gap use case but never states prerequisites, exclusions, or which sibling to choose instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: agents, documents, prospects, competitors, visibility, and link checks are clearly separated. Even the closely related link-building tools are differentiated by whether they find prospects, find competitor gaps, or verify existing links.
Almost every tool follows a clear verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case, such as list_agents, run_agent, and verify_links. The one minor deviation is backlink_gap, which reads as a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb, so the pattern is not perfect.
Fourteen tools is within the ideal range and each tool covers a meaningful part of the Mentionry workflow. The count feels justified given the breadth of features: site analysis, competitor discovery, prospecting, link verification, outreach drafting, agent management, document retrieval, and visibility reporting.
The core workflow is well covered: audit a site, find competitors, discover prospects, verify links, draft outreach, run agents, and read results. The main gaps are agent lifecycle management and document management beyond reading, but those may reasonably live in the Mentionry dashboard rather than the MCP surface.