research_backlinksWho links to a domain: referring domains, authority and anchor texts. Use when planning link building or judging how defensible a competitor's ranking is. Costs credits; cached results are free. Pair with backlink_directories to find places the user can actually get listed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to inspect |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explains that the tool 'Costs credits; cached results are free,' which is a behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It doesn't explicitly describe the safety profile, but the annotations already mark it as not read-only and not destructive. The extra context is meaningful, though it lacks detail about auth or rate limits, keeping it from a 5.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then logistics. 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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, use cases, cost, and a related alternative. Nothing is missing.
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?
With one parameter and 100% schema coverage and a clear description, the description doesn't need to add much. The 'domain' parameter is straightforward, and the description's mention of 'domain' provides adequate context, though it doesn't elaborate on format. As per the rubric, with 100% coverage, the baseline is 3; the description adds a bit by implying the domain format.
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 opens with "Who links to a domain: referring domains, authority and anchor texts," which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It exceeds the title 'Backlink profile' and distinguishes the tool from siblings like research_domain_overview and get_trace by describing the backlink-specific data.
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?
It explicitly states when to use ('when planning link building or judging how defensible a competitor's ranking is') and also names a sibling alternative ('Pair with backlink_directories'), providing clear context and a directly related alternative.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: backlink_directories vs research_backlinks differ (directories vs actual backlinks), gsc_* tools cover different views of own data (overview/pages/queries), research_* tools each address a separate question (competitors, domain overview, AI mentions, backlinks), and the trace/audit/report lifecycle tools have clear roles (start, poll, read, unlock). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
There is a clear pattern: verb_noun for actions (get_trace, read_report, start_trace, unlock_report, search_reports), research_* prefix for external lookups, gsc_* prefix for own Search Console data, and site_audit_* for audits. Minor inconsistency: backlink_directories doesn't follow the verb_noun style (no verb), but overall the naming is predictable and grouped logically.
At 15 tools, this is at the upper end of the well-scoped range (3-15). Each tool serves a distinct function within the SEO/growth analysis domain, so the count feels justified rather than bloated. However, it's slightly heavy, which is why it misses a 5.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of growth reports (search, read, start trace, poll, unlock), ownsite GSC data (overview, pages, queries), competitor research (domain, backlinks, brand, competitors), and site audits (start/get). Minor gaps include no way to delete or manage reports beyond reading, and no direct keyword research beyond GSC queries, but the core workflows are complete.