What can you do with this server?

The crawlgraph-mcp server provides backlink intelligence and competitor gap analysis powered by the Common Crawl webgraph (4.4B edges, 120M domains). It offers four tools: * backlinks — Retrieve all referring domains for a target domain, including authority scores (cg_authority), host counts, and rank data. Supports sorting, limiting results (up to 10,000), and querying specific snapshots via release_id. * gap_analysis — Find domains that link to one or more competitors but not to you. Accepts 1–5 competitor domains and returns each gap domain along with which competitors it links to. Runs as an async job (typically 5–30s). * gap_outreach_targets — A warm outreach tool that runs gap analysis and ranks results into PRIORITY targets (linking to all your competitors but not you) and SECONDARY targets (linking to 2+ competitors). Automatically filters platform/CDN/social noise, optionally enriches top targets with authority scores, and produces a clean ranked list. Requires 2–5 competitor domains. * releases — List all available Common Crawl snapshot releases for historical queries. Free to call (no quota cost).

crawlgraph-mcp

by pucilpet

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

crawlgraph-mcp

MCP server for the CrawlGraph backlink-intelligence API. Gives any MCP client — Claude Desktop, Claude Code, Cursor, Cline, Zed, Windsurf — backlink lookups and competitor gap analysis built on the public Common Crawl webgraph (4.4B edges, 120M domains).

Backlink data without the $129/month subscription. CrawlGraph is $99 lifetime; API access is included on the lifetime tier.

What you can do

backlinks — every referring domain for a target, with authority scores
gap_analysis — domains linking to your competitors but not to you
gap_outreach_targets — the warm-outreach play: the domains that link to all of your competitors but not to you, ranked and de-noised. These are publishers who cover your whole space and have simply never heard of you — the warmest backlink targets you will ever pitch.
releases — list the Common Crawl snapshots you can query

Related MCP server: automatelab-ai-seo

Install

You need a CrawlGraph API key (cg_live_...). Free tier: 15 backlink calls/month, no card - get a key emailed to you at crawlgraph.com/docs/api. The gap_analysis and gap_outreach_targets tools need the $99 lifetime tier (1,000 calls + 50 gap analyses/month, no subscription).

Claude Desktop / Claude Code

Add to your MCP config (claude_desktop_config.json, or .mcp.json for Claude Code):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "crawlgraph": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "crawlgraph-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "CRAWLGRAPH_API_KEY": "cg_live_your_key_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

Cursor / Windsurf / Cline / Zed

Same shape — point the client's MCP config at npx -y crawlgraph-mcp with CRAWLGRAPH_API_KEY in the env. Restart the client and the four tools appear.

The outreach play, in one prompt

Once it's connected, you don't call the tools by hand — you describe the goal:

"Use gap_outreach_targets for mydomain.com against competitor-a.com and competitor-b.com, then draft a short, specific outreach email to each priority target."

Behind the scenes the server submits the gap job, polls until it completes, filters the results down to the domains that link to every competitor but not to you, strips out platform/CDN noise (amazonaws, github, facebook, ...), and hands your agent a clean ranked list to write outreach against.

Why 2-3 competitors, not one: a site linking to one competitor might be a fluke or a paid placement. A site linking to three of your competitors is a publisher who covers your whole category. That overlap is the qualifier.

Tools reference

Tool	Arguments	Quota cost
`backlinks`	`domain`, `limit?`, `sort?` (`authority`\|`hosts`), `release_id?`	1 backlinks call
`gap_analysis`	`my_domain`, `competitor_domains[]` (1-5)	1 gap job
`gap_outreach_targets`	`my_domain`, `competitor_domains[]` (2-5), `include_platforms?`	1 gap job
`releases`	—	free

Lifetime quota: 1,000 backlinks calls + 50 gap jobs per calendar month. Full API reference: crawlgraph.com/docs/api.

Configuration

Env var	Required	Default
`CRAWLGRAPH_API_KEY`	yes	—
`CRAWLGRAPH_BASE_URL`	no	`https://crawlgraph.com`

Limitations

CrawlGraph is a quarterly Common Crawl snapshot, not a live crawler. It's built for one-off competitor prospecting, not live backlink monitoring — for change-tracking within days, a continuous-crawl tool like Ahrefs is the right choice. The gap result carries which competitors each domain links to (found_on) but not per-domain authority; use the backlinks tool if you need to score an individual target.

Develop

npm install
npm run build
CRAWLGRAPH_API_KEY=cg_live_... npm start

License

MIT

Available Tools

4 tools

backlinksBacklink lookupA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up referring domains (backlinks) for a single target domain from the Common Crawl webgraph. Returns each linking domain with host count and CrawlGraph authority score, plus the target's own authority/rank. Costs one backlinks call against the monthly quota (1,000/mo on lifetime).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Target domain, e.g. 'stripe.com'.
`limit`	No	Max rows (1..10000, default 1000).
`sort`	No	'authority' (default) or 'hosts'.
`release_id`	No	Common Crawl release id (defaults to latest; see the releases tool).

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes
`release_id`	Yes
`release_label`	Yes
`total_linking_domains`	Yes
`returned`	Yes
`cg_authority`	Yes
`cg_rank`	Yes
`results`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the critical quota usage detail (1,000/mo) and data source (Common Crawl webgraph), providing extra behavioral context beyond 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?

Extremely concise: two sentences. First sentence front-loads purpose and output, second adds quota info. No filler.

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?

With good annotations, full schema, and output schema, the description covers purpose, source, output summary, and quota. Missing a note on default sort or pagination, but otherwise very complete.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it mainly describes output behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool looks up referring domains for a single target domain from Common Crawl, specifying the output (linking domain, host count, authority score, target authority/rank). This distinguishes it from siblings like gap_analysis or releases.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions quota cost but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like gap_analysis or releases. It implies use for backlink data but lacks exclusion criteria or comparative guidance.

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

gap_analysisCompetitor backlink gap analysisA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a competitor backlink gap analysis: find domains that link to one or more of your competitors but NOT to you. Submits an async job and polls until done (usually 5-30s). Returns every gap with found_on listing which competitors each domain links to. Costs one gap job against the monthly quota (50/mo on lifetime).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`my_domain`	Yes	Your domain.
`competitor_domains`	Yes	1 to 5 competitor domains.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`my_domain`	Yes
`competitor_domains`	Yes
`total_gaps`	Yes
`gaps`	Yes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: async job with polling (5-30s), return format with 'found_on' listing, and quota limits (50/month). Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description aligns without contradiction.

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 concise with three sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, followed by operational details and return info. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (context signals indicate true), the description adequately covers return format and execution behavior. Quota and async details are included. Slight improvement could mention output schema existence or pagination, but overall complete.

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 both parameters (my_domain, competitor_domains) well-described in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-specific semantics, so baseline score of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs a competitor backlink gap analysis, specifically finding domains linking to competitors but not to the user's domain. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'backlinks' and 'gap_outreach_targets' by specifying the unique gap analysis functionality.

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 description explains when to use the tool (to find linking domains) and provides context on async job execution and quota costs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives, though the sibling list implies distinct use cases.

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

gap_outreach_targetsOutreach target finderA

Read-onlyIdempotent

The warm-outreach play. Runs a gap analysis, then ranks results: PRIORITY = domains linking to ALL your competitors but not you (publishers who cover your whole space and have never heard of you), SECONDARY = domains linking to 2+ competitors. Platform/CDN noise is filtered, top N priority targets are scored by authority. Use 2-3 competitors. Costs one gap job + one backlinks call per enriched target.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`my_domain`	Yes	Your domain.
`competitor_domains`	Yes	2 to 5 competitor domains (2-3 recommended).
`include_platforms`	No	Keep platform/CDN/social domains in the list. Default false.
`enrich_top`	No	Authority-score the top N priority targets. Default 10; each costs one backlinks call. 0 disables.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`my_domain`	Yes
`competitor_domains`	Yes
`priority_targets`	Yes
`secondary_targets`	Yes
`total_gaps`	Yes
`platforms_filtered`	Yes
`authority_enriched`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Discloses costs ('one gap job + one backlinks call per enriched target'), noise filtering, and ranking behavior. Adds value beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.) by detailing operational impact.

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?

Concise 5 sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, each sentence adds unique value. No redundancy or 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?

Covers purpose, ranking logic, costs, filtering, and parameter specifics. With output schema existing, no need to detail return values. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds minor extra context (e.g., cost per enrich_top, default for include_platforms), but not substantial beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it finds outreach targets based on gap analysis, ranking priority and secondary domains. Distinct from sibling tools (backlinks, gap_analysis, releases) by combining both analyses.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use 2-3 competitors' and describes the ranking logic, giving clear context. Does not include explicit when-not-to-use, but the purpose is clear enough.

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

releasesList Common Crawl releasesA

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the Common Crawl releases the API can query. Does not count against any quota. Use a release id with the backlinks tool to query a specific snapshot.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`releases`	Yes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds that it does not count against quota, which is valuable behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no superfluous words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema. The description fully explains purpose, quota impact, and how to use the output with a sibling tool. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed since there are no parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists Common Crawl releases the API can query, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning using a release id with the backlinks tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states it does not count against quota, and advises to use a release id with the backlinks tool to query a specific snapshot, providing clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

4 tool updatesv0.2.2Jun 2, 2026
- First observedbacklinks
- First observedgap_analysis
- First observedgap_outreach_targets
- First observedreleases

Deploy Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Scored 2026-06-02 22:08 across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: backlinks for single domain lookup, gap_analysis for competitor gap detection, gap_outreach_targets for ranked outreach targets, and releases for listing data snapshots. No overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern of lowercase with underscores, using descriptive noun phrases (e.g., gap_analysis, gap_outreach_targets). No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a specialized backlink analysis server. Each tool is necessary and the count is appropriate for the domain.

Completeness4/5

Covers essential workflows: single domain lookup, competitor gap analysis, and enriched outreach targeting. Missing bulk queries or historical comparisons, but the releases tool enables snapshot selection, mitigating gaps.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained

ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

QuallaaOAuth
com.quallaa
Talk to your public-facing AI from any MCP client — Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Cline, Windsurf.
AI & Machine Learning Communication
2
RampifyOAuth
dev.rampify
SEO MCP server: crawl your site, find AI-visibility gaps, and ship the fix from your coding agent.
Marketing Web Scraping Developer Tools
23
Seo Backlinks A
io.github.pipeworx-io
SEO Backlinks MCP — backlink intelligence via DataForSEO Backlinks API
Marketing Search
362
mcp A
ai.llmse
Public MCP server for the LLM Search Engine
Search RAG Systems Developer Tools
102

Related MCP Servers

Backlinks MCP
Search Marketing
cnych
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
A MCP server for retrieving backlink information for any domain(SEO).
Updated a year ago (2025-04-14 13:26 UTC)
4
258
MIT
automatelab-ai-seoofficial
Marketing Search
AutomateLab-tech
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
Vendor-agnostic MCP server that audits, scores, and rewrites web pages for AI-citation eligibility. No API keys. No registration. Works in Claude Desktop, Cursor, Cline, Windsurf, VS Code (Copilot / Continue), and any client that speaks the Model Context Protocol.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-06-08 11:00 UTC)
20
58
3
MIT
oncrawl-mcp-server
Marketing Search AI & Machine Learning
Amaculus
A
license
Not graded
quality
F
maintenance
MCP server that exposes OnCrawl's API for use with Claude Code and Claude Desktop. Enables Claude to perform deep technical SEO analysis by querying crawl data, Google Search Console metrics, and crawl-over-crawl comparisons.
Updated 8 months ago (2026-01-19 14:21 UTC)
2
MIT
solograph
Code Analysis Search Knowledge & Memory
fortunto2
A
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
Code intelligence MCP server for Claude Code providing multi-project code graph, semantic search, session history, knowledge base, and web search.
Updated 6 days ago (2026-09-06 15:24 UTC)
15
3
MIT

crawlgraph-mcp

What you can do

Install

Claude Desktop / Claude Code

Cursor / Windsurf / Cline / Zed

The outreach play, in one prompt

Tools reference

Configuration

Limitations

Develop

License

Available Tools

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Output Schema

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

automatelab-ai-seoofficial