Full backlink payload for a domain: total inlink count plus the ranked list of linking domains (authority + outbound link count per linker). Returns up to 100 rows on Pro, 25 on the free tier; use domain_authority_score for just the headline number.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Root domain, e.g. 'stripe.com'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing the result shape (total inbound count plus ranked linking domains with metrics) and the row limits per plan. It does not mention rate limits, latency, or that this is a read-only operation, but the core behavioral context is present.
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 sentences, each earning its place. The first defines the output; the second covers limits and routes to an alternative. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
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 a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what will be returned and the row limits. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though a clearer distinction from top_linkers_for_domain would make it fully unambiguous.
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 100%: the only parameter, 'domain', is already described with an example ('stripe.com') and type. The description adds little beyond restating that the payload is 'for a domain,' so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the resource ('domain') and the specific output: total inlink count plus a ranked list of linking domains with authority and outbound link count. It explicitly distinguishes itself from domain_authority_score by saying that tool provides 'just the headline number,' but it does not differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling top_linkers_for_domain, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
It provides explicit guidance to use domain_authority_score when only the headline number is needed, which is a clear when-not-to-use instruction. It also notes tier-based row limits (100 on Pro, 25 on free), giving context on capabilities. However, it does not address when to prefer this over top_linkers_for_domain or common_linkers, which are likely related alternatives.
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.
Most tools target distinct actions, but backlinks_for_domain and top_linkers_for_domain overlap significantly since both return ranked linking domains with authority and link counts, differing mainly in scope. The descriptions do clarify one is a full payload and the other a quick skim, so an agent can usually choose correctly.
All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but conventions are mixed: several are noun phrases like site_audit and domain_authority_score, some are verb-first like find_link_prospects, and a couple are object-verb like schema_validate and indexnow_submit. The set is understandable but lacks a single consistent naming pattern.
13 tools is appropriate for a backlink and SEO-focused server, fitting comfortably in the well-scoped range. Each area—backlink analysis, AI visibility, site auditing, and indexing—has dedicated tools without the set feeling bloated.
The backlink workflow is well covered: scoring, listing, overlapping linkers, prospect discovery, toxic-link flags, and live verification all exist. Minor gaps remain, such as no per-URL or anchor-level backlink data and no rank-tracking or keyword research, but the core stated purpose is served without major dead ends.