Return our default article-generation prompt so you can see exactly how the article is written and, optionally, edit it. Pass the edited guidance back as "recommendations" in order_backlink. The output contract (JSON title/html/url, one dofollow link, no images) is fixed so the article can be published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | No | ||
| language | No | ||
| target_url | No | ||
| recommendations | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the fixed output contract (JSON title/html/url, one dofollow link, no images) and the edit/recommendations flow, adding meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention side effects or auth, but for a getter-like tool the disclosed details are adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by workflow and contract details. No redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's purpose, its role in the workflow, and the output contract, but omits parameter explanations and does not detail the exact output format beyond a high-level contract. Given the simple getter nature and lack of output schema, it is sufficient but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has four parameters with zero description coverage. The description only mentions 'recommendations' in the context of passing edited guidance to order_backlink, leaving keyword, language, and target_url unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Return' and resource 'default article-generation prompt', clearly identifying the tool's function. It also explains the purpose (see how article is written, optionally edit) and distinguishes it from siblings like order_backlink which handles the ordering step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit workflow guidance by stating 'Pass the edited guidance back as "recommendations" in order_backlink', showing how this tool connects to a sibling. It implies when to use this tool (before ordering) but doesn't explicitly state alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: balance, prompt template, basket contents, donor search, link list, order creation, and publishing. Even get_basket and list_links are clearly separated by pre-publish vs post-publish state.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (check_balance, list_donors, order_backlink, publish_basket). The verbs are varied but appropriate to each operation.
7 tools is a well-scoped number for a backlink marketplace workflow. Each tool earns its place, covering balance, research, ordering, review, and publishing.
The core lifecycle is covered: check balance, find donors, add to basket, inspect basket, publish, and list results. A minor gap is the lack of a remove-from-basket tool or any way to update/cancel orders, but the main flow is complete.