Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ahrefs MCP Server

Ahrefs MCP Server

Official
by ahrefs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

site-explorer-best-by-internal-links

Analyze a site's internal link structure to identify key pages and interconnection patterns. Use this tool to retrieve internal link metrics and optimize site navigation for better SEO performance.

Instructions

Retrieves a site's or page's internal link metrics, allowing analysis of how pages within the given domain or URL are interconnected and which pages receive the most internal links. 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-internal-links"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
modeNo
order_byNo
protocolNo
selectYes
targetYes
timeoutNo
whereNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 describes the tool's function (retrieving metrics for analysis) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure, pagination). For a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 description is concise and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, and the second provides a necessary usage instruction. There is no wasted text, and both sentences earn their place by addressing core needs (what it does and how to proceed). However, it could be slightly improved by integrating the instruction more seamlessly, but it remains efficient.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It explains the tool's purpose but fails to address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or output details. The instruction to use the doc tool is helpful but doesn't substitute for a self-contained description. For a tool in this context, more comprehensive information is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining any parameters (e.g., what 'select', 'target', 'mode', or 'order_by' mean), leaving all parameters undocumented. This forces reliance on the doc tool, but the description itself adds no semantic value beyond that directive, resulting in poor parameter guidance.

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: retrieving internal link metrics for analysis of page interconnections and identifying pages with the most internal links. It specifies the resource (site/page) and the type of data (internal link metrics), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-all-backlinks' or 'site-explorer-external-links'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'site-explorer-linked-anchors-internal', which might be a similar tool, slightly reducing clarity.

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 includes a usage guideline: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which provides a prerequisite step. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'site-explorer-best-by-external-links' or other site-explorer tools), no context on when-not to use it, and no mention of alternatives beyond the doc tool. This leaves the agent with minimal direction for tool selection.

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