Webanto

Find backlink opportunities

webanto_list_backlink_opportunities

Read-onlyIdempotent

List curated opportunities and the connected business's saved tracker. Fit is editorial guidance, not eligibility or a backlink guarantee. Private tracking is not external submission copy. No external sites are contacted.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "webanto_list_backlink_opportunities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No	Filter opportunities by directory or publication category.
`page`	No	One-based opportunity page to return.
`view`	No	Choose recommended opportunities, all opportunities, or the saved tracker.	recommended
`query`	No	Text to match against opportunity names and guidance.
`status`	No	Filter by the organization tracking status.
`page_size`	No	Maximum opportunities returned per page.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pagination`	Yes
`businessName`	Yes
`opportunities`	Yes
`organizationId`	Yes
`profileVersion`	Yes
`externalSubmissionPerformed`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by saying no external sites are contacted, that fit is editorial guidance rather than eligibility, and that private tracking is not submission copy — these are non-obvious expectations that prevent an agent from over-claiming a guarantee.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and no filler. The third sentence ('Private tracking is not external submission copy') is tersely worded and slightly cryptic, costing a little clarity, but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a six-optional-parameter list tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description covers scope, view semantics, and the no-external-contact boundary. The one gap is routing guidance among the many sibling list/get tools, which the description leaves to the agent to infer.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including kind, view, status, query and paging is already documented. The description reinforces the meaning of the tracker view but adds no example values, default behavior, or interaction rules (e.g. whether status filters apply within the tracked view), so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List curated opportunities and the connected business's saved tracker'), which maps directly onto the view enum values and distinguishes it from the get_backlink_* siblings that fetch a single object. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating the scope boundary explicitly, so it's clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

Use is only implied: the phrase 'curated opportunities and the connected business's saved tracker' hints at the recommended-vs-tracked distinction, but the agent is never told when to choose recommended over all or tracked, nor when to prefer a sibling such as get_backlink_profile or get_backlink_report. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Webanto tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?