Skip to main content
Glama
CorgiCorner

Bisibility

by CorgiCorner
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Analyze backlinks

analyze_backlinks

Fetch backlink snapshots for a domain or page, showing summary metrics and per-link rows with new or lost status; run a free cost estimate before spending project budget.

Instructions

Requires API write scope because cache misses spend the project's own DataForSEO budget. Successful snapshots contain summary metrics and per-link rows with new or lost status. Optional 12-month history may be unavailable: history_unavailable marks a history failure with confirmed cost while summary and links remain available. With unknown accounting, the response remains failed (isError) and may retain a completed summary as current-response evidence, with cost_cents null and rows_status not_requested. This evidence is not a cached snapshot or a settled total and does not survive reload. Successful snapshots are cached for 24 hours. Call with estimate_only first for a free dry run, then use max_cost_cents as a best-effort request guard. Compute aggregate views from rows and treat them as "within fetched rows" only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoReturn backlinks as provided or denoise to one backlink per referring domain.
freshNoBypass the current cached snapshot and request fresh provider data.
targetYesDomain or full page URL to analyze.
project_idYesProject id whose provider budget and snapshot are used.
result_limitNoMaximum number of backlink rows to fetch: 100, 300, 500, or 1000.
target_scopeNoAnalyze the whole site or one page. The API infers the scope when omitted.
estimate_onlyNoReturn a free cost estimate without calling the provider or spending budget.
max_cost_centsNoBest-effort maximum provider cost for this request, in cents.
include_subdomainsNoInclude backlinks to subdomains for site targets. Ignored for page targets.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses behavioral traits well beyond annotations: cache misses spend the project's budget, successful snapshots are cached 24 hours, history_unavailable marks a cost-incurring history failure, unknown accounting yields a failed (isError) response with retained summary evidence that does not survive reload, and aggregate views are bounded to fetched rows.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The cost/scope requirement is front-loaded and every sentence carries decision-relevant information about budget, caching, and failure modes. It is dense but appropriately sized for a tool with this much conditional behavior.

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?

For a write-scope, budget-spending tool with no output schema, the description covers cost implications, caching, partial-failure semantics, response evidence, and the estimate/guard workflow. An agent has everything needed to call it safely and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: estimate_only is a free provider-free dry run, max_cost_cents is only a best-effort guard (not a hard cap), and result rows carry a 'within fetched rows' caveat for aggregation.

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?

States a specific verb (analyze) and resource (backlinks) scoped to a target domain or page, using the project's provider budget. The purpose is unambiguous, but it does not name sibling tools like estimate_backlinks_cost or load_more_backlink_rows to distinguish itself explicitly.

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?

Gives actionable workflow guidance: run with estimate_only first as a free dry run, then use max_cost_cents as a best-effort guard, and compute aggregates from fetched rows only. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing to the separate estimate_backlinks_cost sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools