SaaSCity

Check a directory backlink

check_backlink

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a directory listing page links to your site and whether that link is followed. Reads the page's static HTML and reports every anchor pointing at your domain with its rel (nofollow, ugc, sponsored), hidden links, links that only go through the directory's own redirect, and page-level noindex, nofollow and canonical. Use it after submitting to directories to see which listings went live and which ones pass a dofollow link.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "page_url": "<page_url>",
      "your_domain": "<your_domain>"
    },
    "name": "check_backlink"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page_url`	Yes	The directory page that lists your product, e.g. "https://somedirectory.com/tools/your-product"
`your_domain`	Yes	Your product's domain or any URL on it, e.g. "example.com". Subdomains count as matches.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`links`	Yes
`pageUrl`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`verdict`	Yes	not_found covers listings drawn by JavaScript: the check reads static HTML only
`finalUrl`	Yes	After redirects
`linkCount`	Yes	Direct links found; links lists the first 20
`truncated`	Yes	The HTML was over 2 MB and read only up to that point
`httpStatus`	Yes
`pageNofollow`	Yes	Meta robots or X-Robots-Tag nofollow: no link on the page is followed
`targetDomain`	Yes
`pageIndexable`	Yes	False when the page says noindex
`redirectLinkCount`	Yes	Links that reach your domain only through the directory's redirect
`canonicalElsewhere`	Yes	The canonical URL when it differs from the page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), yet the description adds real behavioral detail: it reads the page's *static* HTML, which signals that client-side injected links won't be seen, and it enumerates the classes of findings (rel attributes, hidden links, redirect-only links, page-level noindex/nofollow/canonical). It does not cover failure modes such as unreachable pages, rate limits, or timeouts.

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, front-loaded with the core question, then the enumeration of findings, then the usage cue. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

A two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and an output schema; the description need not explain return values, and it already supplies the one non-obvious caveat (static HTML). Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters carry examples and subdomain-matching semantics already. The description restates the intent ("your site", "your domain") without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource: check whether a directory listing page links to your site and whether that link is followed. The elaboration of what gets reported (anchors, rel values, hidden links, redirect-only links, page-level meta) makes it unmistakable versus siblings like get_listing or submit_project.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

"Use it after submitting to directories to see which listings went live and which ones pass a dofollow link" gives a clear triggering condition tied to the submission workflow. It stops short of naming an alternative or exclusion (e.g., don't use for JS-rendered pages, use X instead), so it falls just 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.

All SaaSCity tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.