Free dofollow backlinks for Canadian businesses. Claim, verify, and track NFC tap analytics.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Most tools are clearly distinct: search_directory and list_free_backlinks both return listings but one is general search and the other specifically lists claimable backlink opportunities, which could cause some confusion. The other tools (claim_listing, check_backlink_status, get_business_stats) are unambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (search_directory, claim_listing, check_backlink_status, list_free_backlinks, get_business_stats). The verbs are clear and the naming style is uniform throughout.
Five tools is an appropriate scope for a directory/backlink service. Each tool serves a distinct purpose in the core workflow: search, list opportunities, claim, verify, and get stats. No tool feels redundant, and the set is easy to grasp.
The tool set covers the main workflow: finding backlink opportunities, claiming listings, and verifying the backlink. The addition of search_directory and get_business_stats provides useful supplementary functions. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool to update or unclaim a listing, but these are not critical for the stated purpose.
check_backlink_statusAInspectCheck the verification and backlink status of a CAN-TAP Verified directory listing. Returns whether the business is claimed, verified, and where the dofollow backlink lives. Use this after calling claim_listing to verify the dofollow link is active.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The business slug from a previous claim_listing response (e.g. 'joe-plumber-toronto') |
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 return values (claimed, verified, backlink location) and implies a read-only operation via 'check', but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error behavior. The workflow reference to claim_listing adds some context.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler or redundant phrasing. Every sentence contributes meaning.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, return values, and usage context sufficiently. It could explicitly state it is a read-only operation, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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%, and the schema already describes the slug as coming from a previous claim_listing response. The tool description reinforces this but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.
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 tool's function: checking verification and backlink status of a CAN-TAP Verified directory listing. It specifies what is returned (claimed, verified, dofollow backlink location) and distinguishes itself from sibling claim_listing by referencing it as the preceding step.
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 description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this after calling claim_listing to verify the dofollow link is active.' This gives clear context, though it does not name alternative tools or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
claim_listingAInspectClaim a free verified directory listing for a Canadian business — receives a permanent dofollow backlink upon domain ownership verification. Use this when a user wants to add their business to the CAN-TAP Verified directory. Rate-limited to 5 claims per IP per day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | Yes | Primary city the business serves | |
| Yes | Business email address (must match website domain for fast verification) | ||
| phone | No | Business phone number (optional) | |
| trade | No | Business trade/category (optional) | |
| website | Yes | Full URL of the business website (https://...) | |
| province | Yes | Two-letter Canadian province code | |
| business_name | Yes | Legal or trading name of the business | |
| google_review_link | No | Optional Google review URL — used for the NFC tap-to-review system |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behaviors: the listing is free, verified, earns a permanent dofollow backlink after domain ownership verification, and is rate-limited to 5 claims per IP per day. This is meaningful operational context, though it does not describe failure modes or response behavior.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding rate-limit and verification context. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy.
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 moderately complex tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key context: when to use it, the rate limit, and the verification requirement for the permanent backlink. It omits return-value details, but the selection decision is well supported.
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?
All 8 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already provides parameter semantics. The description does not add additional detail about specific parameters beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score of 3.
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 uses a specific verb ('Claim') and resource ('free verified directory listing') and states exactly what the tool accomplishes. It also explicitly says 'Use this when a user wants to add their business to the CAN-TAP Verified directory,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_backlink_status and search_directory.
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 description provides a clear use case: add a business to the CAN-TAP Verified directory. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the input context and sibling names make the appropriate usage evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_business_statsAInspectGet NFC tap and review analytics for a CAN-TAP Verified business. Returns total taps, positive vs concern split, average star rating, and recent activity. Use this for businesses that own a CAN-TAP NFC review stand.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Business slug |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (total taps, split, rating, activity) and implies a read-only operation via 'Get,' but it does not explicitly state safety traits like no side effects or authorization requirements, so it provides modest behavioral context.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and efficiently conveys purpose, return values, and usage context without unnecessary details.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter), lack of output schema, and the siblings' clear differentiation, the description adequately covers the return values (taps, split, rating, activity) and usage context. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what to expect.
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 single parameter 'slug' with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond confirming the tool is for CAN-TAP Verified businesses, which is contextual rather than parameter-level.
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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('NFC tap and review analytics'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on business analytics. It also lists specific data points returned, making the purpose unmistakable.
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 description provides clear context by stating 'Use this for businesses that own a CAN-TAP NFC review stand,' which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or reference alternative tools, so it lacks full exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_free_backlinksAInspectList free dofollow backlink opportunities for Canadian businesses. Returns claimable directory listings filtered by city and/or trade. Use this when a user asks 'where can I get a free dofollow backlink for my Canadian client' or similar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Canadian city name (e.g. 'Toronto', 'Vancouver', 'Calgary') | |
| limit | No | Max results to return (default 20, max 100) | |
| trade | No | Business trade/category (e.g. 'plumbing', 'roofing', 'landscaping') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool 'Returns claimable directory listings filtered by city and/or trade,' which implies a read-only listing operation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or limitations such as pagination or claimability criteria.
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 concise and front-loaded, with the primary action and resource in the first sentence. The second sentence adds practical usage guidance. No wasted words.
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?
The tool has no output schema or annotations, so the description should explain what it returns. It does say 'Returns claimable directory listings filtered by city and/or trade,' which covers the core behavior. It lacks return field details but is otherwise complete for a simple list tool, especially with siblings indicating related actions.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only summarizes the schema's existing filter behavior ('filtered by city and/or trade') without adding new parameter details, formats, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List free dofollow backlink opportunities for Canadian businesses.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on free, dofollow, claimable directory listings filtered by city/trade, whereas siblings like check_backlink_status or claim_listing involve status checks or claiming.
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 description provides an explicit trigger example: 'Use this when a user asks "where can I get a free dofollow backlink for my Canadian client" or similar.' It gives clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_directoryAInspectSearch the CAN-TAP Verified directory of 3,000+ real Canadian businesses by name, city, trade, or any combination. Returns matching listings with their URLs and claim status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Filter by city | |
| query | No | Free-text search across business names | |
| trade | No | Filter by trade category |
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 that results include URLs and claim status, and implies a read-only search operation. However, it does not describe the output format (e.g., list vs single object), pagination, or behavior when no matches are found, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It covers the main purpose and the return value efficiently, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function.
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 3-parameter search tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is searched, the filter dimensions, and what is returned. While it lacks details on pagination or result limits, these are not critical for basic usage and the description is otherwise complete.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating that the parameters can be used in any combination, clarifying the relationship between query, city, and trade beyond the individual descriptions in 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 a specific action ('Search') and a specific resource ('CAN-TAP Verified directory of 3,000+ real Canadian businesses'), and mentions the return value (listings with URLs and claim status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_backlink_status and claim_listing.
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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool (searching businesses by name, city, trade, or combination) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria. Sibling tools are present but not referenced, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
