Skip to main content
Glama

seo_backlinks

Analyze and retrieve backlinks for any domain using the ReviewWebsite API, helping optimize SEO strategies and track link-building performance.

Instructions

Get backlinks for a domain using ReviewWeb.site API.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNoYour ReviewWebsite API key
domainYesThe domain to get backlinks for

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler function that executes the seo_backlinks tool logic by calling reviewWebsiteController.getBacklinks.
    async function handleGetBacklinks(args: SeoBacklinksToolArgsType) {
    	const methodLogger = Logger.forContext(
    		'tools/reviewwebsite.tool.ts',
    		'handleGetBacklinks',
    	);
    	methodLogger.debug(`Getting backlinks:`, {
    		...args,
    		api_key: args.api_key ? '[REDACTED]' : undefined,
    	});
    
    	try {
    		const result = await reviewWebsiteController.getBacklinks(args.domain, {
    			api_key: args.api_key,
    		});
    
    		return {
    			content: [
    				{
    					type: 'text' as const,
    					text: result.content,
    				},
    			],
    		};
    	} catch (error) {
    		methodLogger.error(`Error getting backlinks`, error);
    		return formatErrorForMcpTool(error);
    	}
    }
  • Registration of the 'seo_backlinks' tool with the MCP server, specifying name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
    	'seo_backlinks',
    	`Get backlinks for a domain using ReviewWeb.site API.`,
    	SeoBacklinksToolArgs.shape,
    	handleGetBacklinks,
    );
  • Zod schema defining the input arguments for the seo_backlinks tool: domain (required) and api_key (optional).
    export const SeoBacklinksToolArgs = z.object({
    	domain: z.string().describe('The domain to get backlinks for'),
    	api_key: z.string().optional().describe('Your ReviewWebsite API key'),
    });
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. It mentions the API source but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements beyond the API key parameter, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, pagination). The description is minimal and lacks critical operational details.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by including key usage notes, but it's appropriately sized for its simplicity.

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 (an API-based tool with authentication and data retrieval), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., backlink details, format), error conditions, or operational limits. For a tool interacting with an external API, more context is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('api_key' and 'domain'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter constraints, examples, or usage notes. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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') and the target resource ('for a domain'), with the specific API source ('using ReviewWeb.site API'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on backlinks rather than keywords, traffic, or content extraction. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (e.g., 'extract_links') beyond the SEO context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'extract_links' or other SEO tools. The description implies usage for SEO analysis but lacks explicit context, prerequisites (e.g., API key availability), or exclusions. It mentions the API but doesn't specify constraints like rate limits or data freshness.

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

Related 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/mrgoonie/reviewwebsite-mcp-server'

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