backlink_directoriesA hand-verified list of directories and launch platforms that actually give links — checked one by one, dead and nofollow-only entries removed. Use when the user wants backlinks or launch exposure for a new product; filter client-side by language/type/pricing. Costs credits once per day per account — repeat calls the same day are free, so refine freely.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
The description reveals critical behavioral details not in annotations: 'Costs credits once per day per account — repeat calls the same day are free, so refine freely.' It also explains the data is hand-verified, giving confidence in the list's reliability. This goes well beyond the minimal readOnly/destructive hints.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition, followed by use case and cost behavior. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (no params, no output schema), the description comprehensively covers what, when, and the credit behavior. It could elaborate on the response structure, but the mention of 'language/type/pricing' gives a peek into the data fields, making it sufficiently complete.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema already defines everything about inputs, earning the baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (none needed) but implies the output includes language/type/pricing fields, which slightly informs the expected data but not inputs.
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 the tool provides 'a hand-verified list of directories and launch platforms that actually give links' and emphasizes quality ('dead and nofollow-only entries removed'). It uses a specific resource and verb, and the mention of 'filter client-side' distinguishes its purpose from sibling backlink analysis tools.
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 explicitly says 'Use when the user wants backlinks or launch exposure for a new product', giving a clear trigger condition. It does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous for typical use cases.
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: backlink_directories vs research_backlinks differ (directories vs actual backlinks), gsc_* tools cover different views of own data (overview/pages/queries), research_* tools each address a separate question (competitors, domain overview, AI mentions, backlinks), and the trace/audit/report lifecycle tools have clear roles (start, poll, read, unlock). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
There is a clear pattern: verb_noun for actions (get_trace, read_report, start_trace, unlock_report, search_reports), research_* prefix for external lookups, gsc_* prefix for own Search Console data, and site_audit_* for audits. Minor inconsistency: backlink_directories doesn't follow the verb_noun style (no verb), but overall the naming is predictable and grouped logically.
At 15 tools, this is at the upper end of the well-scoped range (3-15). Each tool serves a distinct function within the SEO/growth analysis domain, so the count feels justified rather than bloated. However, it's slightly heavy, which is why it misses a 5.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of growth reports (search, read, start trace, poll, unlock), ownsite GSC data (overview, pages, queries), competitor research (domain, backlinks, brand, competitors), and site audits (start/get). Minor gaps include no way to delete or manage reports beyond reading, and no direct keyword research beyond GSC queries, but the core workflows are complete.