DomainKits

SEO Backlink Analysis

backlink_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return a domain's backlink profile: domain rank, total backlinks, referring domains, spam score, and link distribution.

Related: whois, safety.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain name (no protocol or path)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cms`	No
`rank`	No	Domain rank (0-1000 logarithmic scale)
`error`	No	Error message when success is false
`cached`	No
`domain`	No
`server`	No
`country`	No
`success`	Yes
`backlinks`	No	Total number of backlinks
`first_seen`	No
`ip_address`	No
`broken_pages`	No
`crawled_pages`	No
`referring_ips`	No
`referring_pages`	No
`broken_backlinks`	No
`referring_domains`	No
`referring_subnets`	No
`target_spam_score`	No	Spam score of domain itself (0-100)
`referring_links_tld`	No	Backlink count by referring TLD
`backlinks_spam_score`	No	Spam score of incoming backlinks (0-100)
`external_links_count`	No
`internal_links_count`	No
`referring_links_types`	No	Backlink count by link type (anchor, image, redirect, etc.)
`referring_main_domains`	No
`referring_pages_nofollow`	No
`referring_links_attributes`	No	Backlink count by link attribute (nofollow, sponsored, ugc, etc.)
`referring_links_platform_types`	No	Backlink count by platform type (blogs, news, ecommerce, etc.)
`referring_main_domains_nofollow`	No
`referring_links_semantic_locations`	No	Backlink count by semantic HTML location

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, data freshness, or side effects). It focuses on output content, which is purpose rather than behavior. With strong annotation coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description consists of two short sentences: the first states the core functionality with a clear list of outputs, and the second names related tools. There is no fluff, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter), has an output schema, and the annotations cover safety. The description adequately covers what the tool does and points to related tools. Nothing important is missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'domain' with a clear description ('Domain name (no protocol or path)'). The description itself does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a domain's backlink profile and lists specific metrics (domain rank, backlinks, referring domains, spam score, link distribution). The verb 'Return' plus the resource ('domain's backlink profile') makes the purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from other SEO tools like whois and safety.

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?

The description mentions 'Related: whois, safety' which hints at related tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no direct exclusion or condition, so the usage is mostly implied by the tool name and the listed output. This is adequate but not explicitly guided.

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

All DomainKits 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

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Many domain-search tools (active, aged, expired, deleted, market, nrds, nrds_live) have overlapping boundaries that depend on subtle lifecycle or listing distinctions, and pairs like bulk_tld/tld_check and nrds/nrds_live are easy to confuse. The detailed descriptions and related-tool hints help, but an agent still faces several nearly interchangeable choices.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase_snake_case convention, with no mixing of camelCase or inconsistent verb styles. However, the names use a noun/adjective pattern rather than a clear verb_noun action pattern, and acronyms like nrds, epp_status, and tld_rank make some names less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy for a domain toolkit, and several tools are close variants of the same search or check operation, such as active/aged/expired/deleted/market and nrds/nrds_live. The broad domain scope justifies some breadth, but the set would be much more focused with consolidation.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the core domain lifecycle well: availability, registration states, WHOIS, DNS, pricing, TLD statistics, safety, backlinks, typosquatting, and monitoring. The main gaps are that strategy can store data but has no retrieval or deletion action, and market pricing is limited to Sedo only.

SEO Backlink Analysis

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources