CrunchJunkie

run_link_lookup

Buy a link-profile lookup from DataForSEO for a client: kind overview, referring_domains, anchors, pages or gap (the competitors are required for a gap). It costs money on the workspace's own DataForSEO account (DataForSEO bills it; CrunchJunkie adds nothing) or, where offered, on the Rank Tracker budget (charged 2x the reported price): the preview states the most it can cost, the budget left, and when a stored answer makes it free. retry:true asks again ONLY the parts of a stored partial answer that failed. Requires write actions and "Allow actions that spend AI", and counts toward the assistant-started spend actions per workspace per day. Without confirm:true it returns a preview; the get_link_* tools read the answer afterwards.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "clientId": "<clientId>",
      "kind": "<kind>"
    },
    "name": "run_link_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	What to look up.
`limit`	No	Rows (default 1,000 for referring_domains, 100 for anchors and pages, 500 per competitor for a gap).
`order`	No	referring_domains: which rows DataForSEO sends first (default rank).
`retry`	No	true = only the failed parts of a stored partial answer are asked again.
`scope`	No	gap: each (default, one request per competitor) or all (one request).
`domain`	No	Domain to look up. Default: the client's own.
`status`	No	referring_domains: live (default), lost or all links.
`confirm`	No	Set true to buy. Omit for a preview with the cost. With confirm:true, also pass the preview's previewToken.
`clientId`	Yes	Client id (from list_clients).
`competitors`	No	gap: one to five competitor domains (get_link_gap / the client's competitors).
`previewToken`	No	With confirm:true: the previewToken from this tool's preview (valid 15 minutes, once, for exactly the previewed arguments).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Far exceeds the annotations: it discloses real cost behavior (DataForSEO bills the workspace, Rank Tracker budget charged 2x the reported price), that the preview returns max cost and remaining budget, that a stored answer may make it free, the 15-minute single-use previewToken, and that it requires write actions plus 'Allow actions that spend AI'. It does not contradict readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=false, but it omits what happens if the purchase fails mid-way or how partial answers are surfaced.

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?

Dense and front-loaded with the purchase action first, then cost, then confirmation flow, then the read-back pointer. It is a long single block joined by semicolons, which slightly hurts scannability, but no sentence is 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?

For an 11-parameter, money-spending tool with no output schema, the description covers the cost model, the preview/purchase protocol, prerequisites, retry semantics, and the sibling path to retrieve results. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and safely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine cross-parameter meaning: confirm and previewToken form a preview-then-purchase handshake valid for exactly the previewed arguments, retry scopes a re-request to failed parts only, and gap needs competitors. That context is not derivable from the individual parameter descriptions alone.

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?

States a specific verb ('Buy a link-profile lookup from DataForSEO') plus the resource and the exact kinds (overview, referring_domains, anchors, pages, gap). It also explicitly separates itself from the read-back siblings: 'the get_link_* tools read the answer afterwards.'

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: call this to buy, call get_link_* to read; omit confirm:true for a preview, set it to purchase. It also names conditional prerequisites ('gap' requires competitors; retry:true only re-asks failed parts) and required permissions, leaving little to inference.

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

All CrunchJunkie 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?