Skip to main content
Glama

Seo Backlinks

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Seo Referring Domains

seo_referring_domains
Read-onlyIdempotent

Referring domains for <domain> — the domains that link to a target, with each one's rank, backlink count, and spam score, via DataForSEO. "Which sites link to this domain". Example: seo_referring_domains({ target: "nike.com", limit: 50, _apiKey: "your-base64-key" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax referring domains 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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description adds context about returned fields but does not disclose other behaviors (e.g., rate limits, API key usage) that aren't already in schema. No contradictions.

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?

The description is two focused sentences plus an example. It front-loads the purpose and is free of redundant or irrelevant information.

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 lacking an output schema, the description clearly explains what is returned (rank, backlink count, spam score). Annotations indicate read-only and open world, making the description complete for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description's main added value is the usage example. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states the tool returns referring domains for a target, with specific fields (rank, backlink count, spam score). It uses specific verb and resource, and the name distinguishes it from sibling SEO tools.

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 implies usage ('Which sites link to this domain') and provides an example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like seo_backlinks_list or seo_backlinks_anchors. No when-not or alternatives are given.

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