list_donors
Find marketplace donor sites for a niche/budget. Filters: domain_filter, dr_min, price_max, page.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| dr_min | No | ||
| price_max | No | ||
| domain_filter | No |
Find marketplace donor sites for a niche/budget. Filters: domain_filter, dr_min, price_max, page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| dr_min | No | ||
| price_max | No | ||
| domain_filter | 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 but only mentions the action and filters. It fails to disclose return format, pagination, or any read-only guarantees, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects.
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?
The description is a single sentence followed by a filter list, with no redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool has no output schema and no annotation support, so the description should provide more context about expected results and filter behavior. It currently lacks essential details for effective invocation.
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 description merely lists the parameter names without explaining their semantics. For example, 'dr_min' and 'price_max' are not defined, and schema descriptions are absent, so the agent must guess at their meaning.
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 clearly states it finds marketplace donor sites for a niche/budget, using the specific verb 'Find' and a distinct resource. It does not explicitly compare to sibling tools, but the resource is unique enough to differentiate it.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_links or order_backlink. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.
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.