get_domain_backlinks
Get backlinks for a domain
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| num | No | Number of results to return (max 1000) | |
| domain | Yes | Domain to analyze (e.g., example.com) |
xpay✦ Marketing Collection
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get backlinks' without mentioning pagination, result limits (despite the num parameter), authentication requirements, or output format. It implies a read operation but offers no additional behavioral context.
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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of sibling tools and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify what 'backlinks' encompasses, how the num parameter affects results, or how this tool differs from similar alternatives. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect tool selection.
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%, with both domain and num documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('backlinks for a domain'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_page_backlinks by specifying 'domain', but does not explicitly differentiate from get_unique_domain_backlinks, leaving minor ambiguity.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_unique_domain_backlinks or get_page_backlinks. There are no context cues, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.