Local SEO Data

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

backlink_gap

Read-only

Identify link building opportunities by finding referring domains that link to competitors but not to your site, including domain authority and competitor link details.

Instructions

Use when finding link building opportunities -- sites that link to competitors but not to you. Returns referring domains with domain_authority and which competitors they link to. Costs 23 credits.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max opportunities. Default: 50, max: 100
`your_domain`	Yes	Your domain (e.g. "example.com")
`competitor_domains`	Yes	Competitor domains to compare against

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`your_domain`	Yes
`opportunities`	Yes
`total_opportunities`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Oct 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "opportunities": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "domain_authority": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "links_to_competitors": {
+            "items": {
+              "additionalProperties": true,
+              "properties": {
+                "backlinks": {
+                  "type": "number"
+                },
+                "domain": {
+                  "type": "string"
+                }
+              },
+              "required": [
+                "domain",
+                "backlinks"
+              ],
+              "type": "object"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "links_to_you": {
+            "const": false,
+            "type": "boolean"
+          },
+          "referring_domain": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "referring_domain",
+          "domain_authority",
+          "links_to_competitors",
+          "links_to_you"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "total_opportunities": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "your_domain": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "your_domain",
+    "opportunities",
+    "total_opportunities"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: the credit cost (23 credits) and the shape of what comes back, which an agent needs for cost-aware planning. No contradiction with annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences: the trigger first, the return second, the cost last. Every sentence carries distinct information — no restatement of the title or the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and all three parameters are documented inline. The description covers trigger, output gist, and cost; it does not mention the limit cap or result volume, which a 3-parameter costed tool could afford to note.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with inline descriptions for limit (default 50, max 100), your_domain, and competitor_domains (1–5 items), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming competitors as the comparison target, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 and resource — finds sites linking to competitors but not to the user's domain — and previews the return shape (referring domains with authority and competitor linkage). That distinguishes it conceptually from backlink_summary and competitor_gap, though neither sibling is named.

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?

"Use when finding link building opportunities" gives an explicit use context rather than leaving it implied. There are no stated exclusions or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer competitor_gap or backlink_summary instead), so it stops short of a 5.

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