Skip to main content
Glama

Seo Backlinks

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Seo Backlinks List

seo_backlinks_list
Read-onlyIdempotent

Backlinks pointing at <domain> — the actual list of linking pages with source domain, anchor text, dofollow flag, and first/last seen dates, via DataForSEO. "Who links to this site". Example: seo_backlinks_list({ target: "nike.com", limit: 50, _apiKey: "your-base64-key" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo"as_is" (default), "one_per_domain", or "one_per_anchor"
limitNoMax backlinks to return (default 50, max 200)
targetYesDomain, subdomain, or URL, e.g. "nike.com"
_apiKeyYesDataForSEO API key = base64("login:password")
backlinks_status_typeNo"live" (default), "all", or "lost"

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the data source (DataForSEO) and lists returned fields, but does not substantially expand on behavioral traits beyond annotations. No contradictions found.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a code example. The first sentence immediately states purpose and outputs. Every element serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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?

Adequately covers purpose and outputs for a list tool. Mentions returned fields and provides an example call. Lacks information on pagination or rate limits, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is mostly 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 five parameters. The description provides an example call and restates some parameter purposes, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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?

Clearly states it returns the actual list of linking pages with specific fields (source domain, anchor text, dofollow flag, dates). Distinguishes from sibling tools like seo_backlinks_anchors or seo_backlinks_summary by specifying it's the list of linking pages. The phrase 'Who links to this site' provides additional context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as seo_backlinks_anchors, seo_backlinks_history, or seo_backlinks_summary. The description includes an example but lacks context for selection criteria.

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