Skip to main content
Glama

SEOmatic

by ai.seomatic

backlink_profile

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the backlink profile of your own site or any competitor: referring domains, anchor-text distribution, link velocity, and link-prospect intersects. Use for authority and link questions; for rankings use serp_competitors. Already scoped to the connected workspace and its site; call directly, no domain or site parameter is needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoanchors (default 25) and referring_domains (default 50).
actionYesWhich operation to run. summary (totals, referring domains, rank/spam); anchors (anchor-text distribution); velocity (monthly new vs lost referring domains); referring_domains (top linking domains); link_prospects (link intersect: linking to competitors but not to us).
domainNoThe domain to analyze, e.g. "example.com". Omit it to analyze the connected workspace's own site (the server fills it in); pass it only to analyze a competitor.
monthsNovelocity only: months back (default 6).
competitorsNolink_prospects only: 1-3 competitor domains to intersect against.
user_intentNoOptional: one short sentence describing what the user is ultimately trying to achieve with this request. Used by SEOmatic to tailor answers and improve the product; never required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_intent
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: one short sentence describing what the user is ultimately trying to achieve with this request. Used by SEOmatic to tailor answers and improve the product; never required.",
+  "maxLength": 300,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "action",
-  "domain"
-]New value: +[
+  "action"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "A JSON object whose fields depend on the chosen action. Non-JSON results arrive as { result: string }. The text content block always carries the same data serialized.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already set readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context about being scoped to the connected workspace and that no domain parameter is required, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 a single focused paragraph that leads with the core purpose, then specifies scope and usage guidance. It is concise, well-organized, and avoids redundancy, including a clear contrast with the sibling tool.

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 tool's moderate complexity (six parameters, one required, with enums), the description covers purpose, usage, scoping, and alternatives. It does not delve into output specifics, but the presence of an output schema covers that. It lacks discussion of edge cases or errors, but these are not critical for basic 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?

The schema descriptions are already detailed (e.g., action enum explanations, domain optionality, competitors list). The tool description does not add significant new semantics beyond restating the overall purpose; it mainly reinforces what the schema already covers, so it provides minimal additional value for parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool reads backlink profiles for own or competitor sites, lists the key metrics (referring domains, anchor text, velocity, prospects), and differentiates its use case (authority/link questions) from the sibling tool serp_competitors, making its purpose clear and distinct.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for authority and link questions') and when to use an alternative ('for rankings use serp_competitors'). It also clarifies that no domain parameter is needed because it's scoped to the connected workspace, giving concrete usage instructions.

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

All SEOmatic toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct SEO domain: backlinks, campaigns, datasets, AI visibility, keyword research, local presence, SERP, site audit, page analysis, and tasks. The two 'manage' tools are clearly separated by campaign vs task, and descriptions actively cross-reference each other to disambiguate. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix conventions: bare noun phrases (backlink_profile, site_pages), object-verb forms (campaign_manage, task_manage), and verb-first forms (get_ai_visibility, import_attachment_as_dataset). The 'site_' prefix is used for only two tools, and 'manage' is reused inconsistently. While readable, the naming lacks a predictable pattern.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well-scoped for a broad SEO platform, covering technical, keyword, SERP, backlink, local, AI visibility, dataset, and workflow management. Each tool earns its place, and the count feels neither bloated nor thin.

Completeness4/5

The set covers major SEO analysis workflows and adds campaign/task management plus dataset support. However, site_pages references a 'gsc_performance' tool that is not included, and dataset management is read-only plus import-only, lacking update/delete. These are minor gaps that agents can work around.

Resources