Local SEO Data

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

backlink_summary

Read-only

Analyze a domain's backlink profile to retrieve rank, total backlinks, referring domains, broken backlinks, spam score, and backlink types.

Instructions

Use when getting a domain's backlink profile overview. Returns rank, backlinks_total, referring_domains, broken_backlinks, spam_score, and backlinks_by_type. Costs 23 credits.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "backlink_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain to analyze (e.g. "example.com")

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rank`	Yes
`domain`	Yes
`spam_score`	Yes
`backlinks_total`	Yes
`broken_backlinks`	Yes
`backlinks_by_type`	Yes
`referring_domains`	Yes
`referring_domains_nofollow`	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": {
+    "backlinks_by_type": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "anchor": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "image": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "redirect": {
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "anchor",
+        "image",
+        "redirect"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "backlinks_total": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "broken_backlinks": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "domain": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rank": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "referring_domains": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "referring_domains_nofollow": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "spam_score": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "domain",
+    "rank",
+    "backlinks_total",
+    "referring_domains",
+    "referring_domains_nofollow",
+    "broken_backlinks",
+    "spam_score",
+    "backlinks_by_type"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing a 23-credit cost and summarizing the returned profile fields. It does not discuss rate limits or authorization, but the cost disclosure is a meaningful addition beyond the 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?

The description is three compact sentences, with usage context front-loaded, followed by return fields and cost. Every sentence carries actionable information and there is no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has a simple one-parameter schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety behavior. The description supplies the remaining relevant context: when to use it, what it returns, and its credit cost. Nothing material for invoking the tool is missing.

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?

There is one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the 'domain' argument. The description implies a domain input but adds no format, validation, or domain-handling detail beyond the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action and resource: getting a domain's backlink profile overview. It lists the returned metrics, making the tool's purpose concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish this overview from the sibling backlink_gap tool, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

The opening phrase 'Use when getting a domain's backlink profile overview' gives a clear use condition. However, it does not name exclusions or compare against alternatives such as backlink_gap, so the agent must infer when this overview is preferable.

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