Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Ahrefs MCP Server

Ahrefs MCP Server

Official
by ahrefs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

site-explorer-refdomains-history

Track historical referring domain data for a specific target (domain or URL) over a customizable date range, with options for grouping and analysis scope, to monitor backlink evolution and trends.

Instructions

Provides historical data on referring domains linking to a specified target (domain or URL) over a defined date range, with customizable grouping and analysis scope. 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": {
      "date_from": "<date_from>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "site-explorer-refdomains-history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
date_fromYes
date_toNo
history_groupingNo
modeNo
protocolNo
targetYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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 'historical data' and 'customizable grouping and analysis scope,' which implies read-only analysis, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's a read operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or output format. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, making it inadequate for informed use.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose with key details, and the second provides a usage note. It's front-loaded with the main function but includes an extra sentence about using another tool, which, while helpful, adds length without enhancing the core description. This structure is acceptable but not optimally concise, as the second sentence could be integrated or omitted if not critical.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at parameters but lacks details on behavior, output, error handling, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context is needed to ensure the agent can use it effectively, making this description insufficient for the tool's requirements.

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 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds some semantics by mentioning 'target (domain or URL),' 'date range,' 'grouping,' and 'analysis scope,' which loosely map to parameters like 'target,' 'date_from/date_to,' and 'history_grouping/mode.' However, it doesn't explain the purpose or format of all parameters (e.g., 'protocol'), leaving many undocumented. With low coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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: providing historical data on referring domains linking to a target over a date range, with customizable grouping and analysis scope. It specifies the verb ('Provides historical data'), resource ('referring domains'), and scope ('over a defined date range'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'site-explorer-refdomains' (which likely provides current data) and 'site-explorer-backlinks-stats' (which might focus on statistics rather than historical trends). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'site-explorer-domain-rating-history'), keeping it from 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 includes a usage guideline: 'Use doc tool first to get the real input schema,' which suggests a prerequisite step. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'site-explorer-refdomains' for current data or other historical tools like 'site-explorer-metrics-history'), and doesn't specify exclusions or contexts where it's preferred. This minimal guidance is insufficient for clear decision-making.

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