@true402.dev/mcp-server

backlinks

Instructions

A domain's backlink profile: referring domains and pages, the dofollow split that carries authority, authority rank, spam score, broken backlinks, and link composition by TLD, type, attribute and country. POST { target }; unpaid returns 402. (PAID x402 service — USDC on Base; the MCP server needs a funded wallet to settle.) Price: $0.1 USD (fixed).

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "backlinks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	Yes	Domain, or any URL on it

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.3.0Oct 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the POST transport, the 402 failure mode for unpaid calls, that this is an x402 paid service settled in USDC on Base, the requirement for a funded MCP wallet, and a fixed $0.1 price. Return format and rate limits are not covered, but the payment and failure behavior is unusually well surfaced.

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 data returned is front-loaded before the payment mechanics, and every sentence carries information an agent needs (what data, how to call, what it costs). The payment parenthetical is dense but not wasteful; nothing is redundant.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema, paid query tool, the description covers purpose, output content, transport, cost, and wallet prerequisite. Missing pieces are minor: no pagination/response-size hints and no error behavior beyond 402, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is absent.

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% and the single `target` parameter already documents 'Domain, or any URL on it'. The description restates the target only implicitly ('A domain's backlink profile', 'POST `{ target }`') and adds no format or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific resource (a domain's backlink profile) and enumerates the exact data returned (referring domains, dofollow split, authority rank, spam score, broken backlinks, composition by TLD/type/attribute/country). It is unambiguous what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the closest sibling, seo_audit, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent learns it must supply a target via POST and that an unpaid call returns 402. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over seo_audit or other SEO tools, nor any exclusion conditions, leaving alternative routing to inference.

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