Skip to main content
Glama

Vee3

by io.github.Vee3io

seo.backlinks

Find backlinks pointing to a website URL.

Returns an overview (domain rating, URL rating, backlink counts, referring domains, dofollow breakdown) and a list of individual backlinks with anchor text, source and target URLs, domain rating, and redirect chains.

Cost = 10 tokens.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic website URL to check for backlinks.
include_subdomainsNoWhen true (default), include backlinks to the domain and its subdomains. When false, analyze only the exact URL.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
overviewNoAggregate backlink statistics for the target.
backlinksNoIndividual backlink records with anchor text and source URLs.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / $defs / SeoBacklinkCheckerResponseBacklinksItem / properties / domainRating / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / $defs / SeoBacklinkCheckerResponseOverview / properties / domainRating / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / $defs / SeoBacklinkCheckerResponseOverview / properties / urlRating / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return structure and token cost, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or explain error handling. The cost disclosure adds value, but more context could be given about access requirements.

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 is three sentences: purpose, return details, and cost. It is front-loaded with the main action, contains no redundancy, and every sentence adds value.

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?

The description provides purpose, output structure, and cost, which is sufficient for a simple read-only tool with a well-covered schema. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation, but overall it is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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% with clear parameter descriptions for 'url' and 'include_subdomains'. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Find backlinks pointing to a website URL' with a specific verb and resource, and details the return content (overview and individual backlinks). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling SEO tools like seo.basic_metrics and seo.url_metrics.

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?

Usage is implied by the tool's name and clear purpose, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. It does not contrast with similar SEO tools or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a 4.

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

All Vee3 toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose, further clarified by group prefixes and clear descriptions. Within each group, tools perform different operations (e.g., domains.lookup vs. domains.whois vs. domains.rdap) with no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent group.tool_name pattern using snake_case. The naming is predictable and uniformly applied across all groups.

Tool Count4/5

78 tools is high, but the server aggregates multiple distinct API domains (11 groups). Each group has a reasonable number of tools, typically under 10, with TikTok having 17. The count reflects breadth, not bloat.

Completeness5/5

Each domain's tool set covers the primary expected operations (e.g., search, details, reviews, metrics, user info). There are no obvious gaps for read-only analytical use; features like posting are likely out of scope.

Resources