Skip to main content
Glama
metehan777

Semrush MCP Server

by metehan777

backlinks_overview

Analyze backlinks for domains or URLs to understand link profiles and SEO performance. Use this tool to identify referring domains and assess backlink quality.

Instructions

Get backlinks overview for a domain or URL. Target type can be root_domain, domain, or url.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
target_typeYes

Implementation Reference

  • Handler case for 'backlinks_overview' tool within the CallToolRequestSchema handler: parses input using BacklinksOverviewSchema, calls Semrush API 'backlinks_overview' endpoint with target, target_type, and specific export_columns via analytics v1.
    case 'backlinks_overview': {
      const { target, target_type } = BacklinksOverviewSchema.parse(args);
      data = await callSemrushAPI('backlinks_overview', { 
        target,
        target_type,
        export_columns: 'ascore,total,domains_num,urls_num,ips_num,ipclassc_num,follows_num,nofollows_num,sponsored_num,ugc_num,texts_num,images_num,forms_num,frames_num',
      }, true); // Pass true for isAnalyticsV1
      break;
  • Zod input schema for backlinks_overview tool, defining 'target' as string and 'target_type' as enum with default 'root_domain'.
    const BacklinksOverviewSchema = z.object({
      target: z.string().describe('Domain to analyze'),
      target_type: z.enum(['root_domain', 'domain', 'url']).default('root_domain').describe('Type of target: root_domain, domain (for subdomains), or url'),
    });
  • src/index.ts:202-209 (registration)
    Registration of 'backlinks_overview' tool in the ListToolsRequestSchema response, including name, description, and inputSchema based on BacklinksOverviewSchema.
      name: 'backlinks_overview',
      description: 'Get backlinks overview for a domain or URL. Target type can be root_domain, domain, or url.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: BacklinksOverviewSchema.shape,
        required: ['target', 'target_type'],
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated data, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and parameter context. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 has 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter types but lacks details on behavior, output, error handling, or usage context. For a tool with this complexity and minimal structured data, more comprehensive guidance is needed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'target' is a 'domain or URL' and clarifies the 'target_type' options ('root_domain, domain, or url'), providing semantic understanding that the schema lacks. However, it doesn't detail parameter constraints or examples.

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 action ('Get backlinks overview') and resource ('for a domain or URL'), specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on backlinks rather than competitors, ads, organic search, or keywords, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct from sibling tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'domain_overview' or 'competitor_research'. It mentions target types but doesn't explain why to choose this tool over others for backlink analysis. There's no context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/metehan777/semrush-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server