Skip to main content
Glama
cnych

Backlinks MCP

by cnych
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

SEO MCP

A MCP (Model Control Protocol) SEO tool service based on Ahrefs data. Includes features such as backlink analysis, keyword research, traffic estimation, and more.

中文

Overview

This service provides an API to retrieve SEO data from Ahrefs. It handles the entire process, including solving the CAPTCHA, authentication, and data retrieval. The results are cached to improve performance and reduce API costs.

This MCP service is for educational purposes only. Please do not misuse it. This project is inspired by @哥飞社群.

Related MCP server: Sitemap MCP Server

Features

  • 🔍 Backlink Analysis

    • Get detailed backlink data for any domain

    • View domain rating, anchor text, and link attributes

    • Filter educational and government domains

  • 🎯 Keyword Research

    • Generate keyword ideas from a seed keyword

    • Get keyword difficulty score

    • View search volume and trends

  • 📊 Traffic Analysis

    • Estimate website traffic

    • View traffic history and trends

    • Analyze popular pages and country distribution

    • Track keyword rankings

  • 🚀 Performance Optimization

    • Use CapSolver to automatically solve CAPTCHA

    • Response caching

Installation

Prerequisites

  • Python 3.10 or higher

  • CapSolver account and API key (register here)

Install from PyPI

pip install seo-mcp

Or use uv:

uv pip install seo-mcp

Manual Installation

  1. Clone the repository:

    git clone https://github.com/cnych/seo-mcp.git
cd seo-mcp

  2. Install dependencies:

    pip install -e .
# Or
uv pip install -e .

  3. Set the CapSolver API key:

    export CAPSOLVER_API_KEY="your-capsolver-api-key"

Usage

Run the service

You can run the service in the following ways:

Use in Cursor IDE

In the Cursor settings, switch to the MCP tab, click the +Add new global MCP server button, and then input:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "SEO MCP": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["--python", "3.10", "seo-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "CAPSOLVER_API_KEY": "CAP-xxxxxx"
      }
    }
  }
}

You can also create a .cursor/mcp.json file in the project root directory, with the same content.

API Reference

The service provides the following MCP tools:

get_backlinks_list(domain: str)

Get the backlinks of a domain.

Parameters:

  • domain (string): The domain to analyze (e.g. "example.com")

Returns:

{
  "overview": {
    "domainRating": 76,
    "backlinks": 1500,
    "refDomains": 300
  },
  "backlinks": [
    {
      "anchor": "Example link",
      "domainRating": 76,
      "title": "Page title",
      "urlFrom": "https://referringsite.com/page",
      "urlTo": "https://example.com/page",
      "edu": false,
      "gov": false
    }
  ]
}

keyword_generator(keyword: str, country: str = "us", search_engine: str = "Google")

Generate keyword ideas.

Parameters:

  • keyword (string): The seed keyword

  • country (string): Country code (default: "us")

  • search_engine (string): Search engine (default: "Google")

Returns:

[
  {
    "keyword": "Example keyword",
    "volume": 1000,
    "difficulty": 45,
    "cpc": 2.5
  }
]

get_traffic(domain_or_url: str, country: str = "None", mode: str = "subdomains")

Get the traffic estimation.

Parameters:

  • domain_or_url (string): The domain or URL to analyze

  • country (string): Country filter (default: "None")

  • mode (string): Analysis mode ("subdomains" or "exact")

Returns:

{
  "traffic_history": [...],
  "traffic": {
    "trafficMonthlyAvg": 50000,
    "costMontlyAvg": 25000
  },
  "top_pages": [...],
  "top_countries": [...],
  "top_keywords": [...]
}

keyword_difficulty(keyword: str, country: str = "us")

Get the keyword difficulty score.

Parameters:

  • keyword (string): The keyword to analyze

  • country (string): Country code (default: "us")

Returns:

{
  "difficulty": 45,
  "serp": [...],
  "related": [...]
}

Development

For development:

git clone https://github.com/cnych/seo-mcp.git
cd seo-mcp
uv sync

How it works

  1. The user sends a request through MCP

  2. The service uses CapSolver to solve the Cloudflare Turnstile CAPTCHA

  3. The service gets the authentication token from Ahrefs

  4. The service retrieves the requested SEO data

  5. The service processes and returns the formatted results

Troubleshooting

  • CapSolver API key error：Check the CAPSOLVER_API_KEY environment variable

  • Rate limiting：Reduce request frequency

  • No results：The domain may not be indexed by Ahrefs

  • Other issues：See GitHub repository

License

MIT License - See LICENSE file

Available Tools

4 tools
get_trafficC
Check the estimated search traffic for any website. 

Args:
    domain_or_url (str): The domain or URL to query
    country (str): The country to query, default is "None"
    mode (["subdomains", "exact"]): The mode to use for the query
Returns:
    Traffic data for the specified domain or URL
ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domain_or_urlYes
countryNoNone
modeNosubdomains

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a data query tool, this is a significant gap.

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 concise at two sentences plus an Args/Returns list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and structured for easy scanning. No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description only vaguely states 'Traffic data' without specifying structure. Combined with missing behavioral context, the description is incomplete for a 3-parameter tool.

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?

The description includes an Args section that lists parameters and their types, adding some meaning beyond the schema (e.g., domain_or_url is 'The domain or URL to query'). However, it does not explain the difference between 'subdomains' and 'exact' modes, nor the effect of the country parameter, beyond default values.

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 'Check the estimated search traffic for any website', which clearly identifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_backlinks_list and keyword_difficulty by focusing on traffic estimation, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the tool's function without context for decision-making.

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

keyword_difficultyC

Get keyword difficulty for the specified keyword

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordYes
countryNous

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It does not disclose how difficulty is calculated, what unit/scale is used, or any side effects. Bare minimum.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence of 8 words is concise but lacks substance. Appropriate length for the content, but more detail would improve informativeness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 params requiring explanation, the description is inadequate. Leaves agent guessing about return values, scope, and usage nuances.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema has 0% description coverage. Description only mentions 'specified keyword' without explaining its meaning or format. Country parameter and default are not explained. Adds minimal value to schema.

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 'Get keyword difficulty for the specified keyword' clearly states the action and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_backlinks_list and get_traffic, though sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. Lacks context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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

keyword_generatorC

Get keyword ideas for the specified keyword

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordYes
countryNous
search_engineNoGoogle

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description only says 'get ideas' with no disclosure of behavior (e.g., return format, rate limits, data source).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely short, no fluff, but lacks essential details. Conciseness is achieved at the expense of completeness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. No information on return values or side effects.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% and description only mentions the keyword parameter, ignoring country and search_engine. Fails to compensate for missing parameter descriptions.

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 it returns keyword ideas for a given keyword. It distinguishes from sibling tools (backlinks, traffic, difficulty) but lacks specificity about the output format or scope.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, no context about typical use cases.

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.

  1. 4 tool updates
    • First observedget_backlinks_list
    • First observedget_traffic
    • First observedkeyword_difficulty
    • First observedkeyword_generator
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap. get_backlinks_list retrieves backlink data for domains, get_traffic provides traffic estimates, keyword_difficulty assesses keyword competitiveness, and keyword_generator suggests related keywords. The four tools cover separate aspects of SEO analysis without ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case formatting. Each name clearly indicates its function: get_backlinks_list, get_traffic, keyword_difficulty, and keyword_generator maintain perfect naming consistency throughout the set.

Tool Count4/5

Four tools is reasonable for an SEO/backlink analysis server, though slightly minimal. The tools cover core SEO functions (backlinks, traffic, keyword difficulty, keyword generation), but additional tools like domain authority checking or competitor analysis could enhance completeness. The count is appropriate but leaves room for expansion.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers key SEO analysis areas but has notable gaps. While it provides backlink data, traffic estimates, and keyword tools, it lacks domain authority metrics, competitor backlink analysis, and link-building tools. Agents can perform basic SEO analysis but may encounter dead ends for more advanced workflows requiring these missing operations.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches