Skip to main content
Glama

Seo Backlinks

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Seo Backlinks History

seo_backlinks_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Backlink growth over time for <domain> — monthly history of backlinks, new/lost referring domains, and rank, via DataForSEO. "Is this domain gaining or losing links". Example: seo_backlinks_history({ target: "nike.com", date_from: "2024-01-01", _apiKey: "your-base64-key" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesDomain, subdomain, or URL, e.g. "nike.com"
_apiKeyYesDataForSEO API key = base64("login:password")
date_toNoEnd date YYYY-MM-DD (default today)
date_fromNoStart date YYYY-MM-DD (min 2019-01-01; default 1 year ago)

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds details about returned data (monthly history, new/lost referring domains, rank) and a usage context. No contradictions. It doesn't mention rate limits or auth beyond schema, but the annotations cover safety adequately.

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?

Two sentences plus a concise example. Purpose is front-loaded and informative. Every part earns its place; no wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the return data: monthly history of backlinks, new/lost referring domains, and rank. All parameters are covered in schema. For a simple historical data tool, this is complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds an example and mentions date range, but no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves monthly backlink history for a domain, including new/lost referring domains and rank. It uses specific verbs ('Backlink growth over time') and distinguishes from siblings like seo_backlinks_list, seo_backlinks_summary, seo_referring_domains.

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 includes an example and a question ('Is this domain gaining or losing links') that implies use, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like seo_backlinks_list or seo_backlinks_summary. No when-not or alternative guidance.

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

All Seo Backlinks 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, making them practically indistinguishable, and ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with one extra verification step. The five polymarket_* tools also share overlapping 'find/validate edge' territory, and scan_competitor_ai_presence is a direct wrapper over ai_visibility_check, so an agent must read carefully to pick correctly.

Naming Consistency3/5

Prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, seo_backlinks_*, pipeworx_*) provide some predictability, and several tools follow verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim). However, conventions mix single verbs (remember, forget, recall), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and seo_referring_domains breaks the seo_backlinks_* family pattern, so the overall scheme is readable but inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is over the 25+ 'too many' threshold even for a broad platform, and the mismatch is far worse given the server is named 'Seo Backlinks' — only 5 of 36 tools actually serve that purpose. The other 31 tools (Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions) belong to a different scope entirely, making the set feel bloated and mislabeled.

Completeness3/5

The five genuine backlink tools cover a single-domain audit well (summary, list, anchors, referring domains, history), but they lack standard SEO workflows like multi-domain or competitor backlink comparison, and there is no tool connecting backlink data to the AI-visibility audit tools. The surrounding Pipeworx surface is extensive, but it belongs to a different domain than the server's stated purpose.

Resources