Return the top 25 domains linking to a given domain, ranked by the linking domain's own authority, with link counts. Good for a quick competitive/backlink-profile skim.
| 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It adequately reveals the output shape ('top 25', 'ranked by linking domain's own authority', 'with link counts'), but it does not explain what 'authority' means, whether results are paginated, or any request limitations.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, and the core result is front-loaded before the use-case note. Every clause adds useful information.
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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description gives enough information to call it correctly: the domain input and the expected ranked output with counts. It lacks only minor contextual details such as pagination or an explicit alternative tool, which are not essential for a basic invocation.
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?
The schema already documents the only parameter 'domain' with an example, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific action ('Return the top 25 domains linking to a given domain') and adds the ranking criterion and link counts. It is not a tautology and conveys the tool's essential scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like backlinks_for_domain or common_linkers.
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?
The phrase 'Good for a quick competitive/backlink-profile skim' provides clear usage context. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or point to alternative siblings, so it stops short of full routing guidance.
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.