Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unilytics MCP Server

Unilytics MCP Server

Official
by TeamUnilytics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

link_extract

Read-only

Extract and classify all links from a webpage to audit internal vs external links, analyze anchor text, and check nofollow distribution for link reviews.

Instructions

Extract and classify all links from a webpage.

Returns internal vs external links with anchor text, nofollow attributes,
and link counts. Use for link audits, outbound link analysis, internal
linking reviews, finding link building opportunities on competitor pages,
or checking nofollow distribution.

Args:
    url: Full URL to extract links from (e.g. "https://example.com/page")
    js_rendering: Wait for JavaScript rendering before extracting (default: False)

[Provider: Firecrawl]

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "link_extract"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
js_renderingNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / config
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "config",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it states what the response contains (internal/external split, anchor text, nofollow attributes, link counts) and explains that js_rendering waits for JavaScript before extraction. No mention of rate limits or crawl depth/scope limits, so not 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, return contents follow, then use cases, then a compact Args block. The Args block partly repeats the schema but is justified by 0% schema coverage; the list of use cases is slightly padded but still earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and both parameters adequately. Minor gaps remain around result limits (how many links are returned) and any scope restrictions on the target page.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and largely does it: url is described as a full URL with a concrete example, and js_rendering is explained as waiting for JS rendering with its default noted. Both parameters gain meaning the bare schema titles ('Url', 'Js Rendering') do not provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Extract and classify all links from a webpage,' and immediately clarifies the classification dimension (internal vs external). It does not explicitly name a sibling such as backlink_analysis or content_scrape to disambiguate, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Concrete use cases are given: link audits, outbound link analysis, internal linking reviews, competitor link-building research, and nofollow distribution checks. That is clear context for selecting the tool, but there are no explicit exclusions or pointers to an alternative when the task is backlink profiling rather than on-page link extraction.

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