Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ahrefs MCP Server

Ahrefs MCP Server

Official
by ahrefs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

site-explorer-best-by-external-links

Analyze and rank a website’s top-performing pages based on external backlinks. Filter, sort, and retrieve insights to optimize SEO and content strategy using Ahrefs-powered data.

Instructions

Returns a list of a site's or URL's best-performing pages, ranked by the number of referring external links, with flexible filtering and sorting options. Use doc tool first to get the real input schema.

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": {
      "select": "<select>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "site-explorer-best-by-external-links"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
historyNo
limitNo
modeNo
order_byNo
protocolNo
selectYes
targetYes
timeoutNo
whereNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'flexible filtering and sorting options' and refers to the 'doc tool' for schema details, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable invocation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is reasonably concise with two sentences, but it is not optimally structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second sentence ('Use doc tool first to get the real input schema') is procedural and could be better integrated or omitted if the schema were self-explanatory. While not wasteful, it lacks front-loading of critical information, such as key parameters or usage context, reducing its effectiveness.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but fails to provide necessary context for usage, parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output expectations. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent is left guessing about how to use the tool effectively, making this description insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description adds no meaningful information about the 9 parameters beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the parameters (e.g., 'history', 'mode', 'order_by') are entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not explain what these parameters do, their expected values, or how they affect the output, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns a list of a site's or URL's best-performing pages, ranked by the number of referring external links.' It specifies the verb ('returns'), resource ('pages'), and ranking criteria ('number of referring external links'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-best-by-internal-links' or 'site-explorer-top-pages', which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides minimal usage guidance. It mentions 'flexible filtering and sorting options' but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'site-explorer-best-by-internal-links' for internal links or 'site-explorer-top-pages' for other metrics). The instruction 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema' is procedural rather than contextual, offering no help in tool selection. No explicit when/when-not scenarios or alternatives are provided.

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

Related Tools