Fenlight

Keyword Ideas

keyword_ideas

Read-only

Keyword ideas for a seed keyword from Google autocomplete (the seed plus question words or the alphabet), People Also Ask and related searches, cleaned and de-duplicated. Each idea carries its sources and an intent label (question, comparison, commercial, local, informational). Works in Arabic. Ideas only: no search volumes. Charged for the results page (7 credits live, 1 from your cache) plus 7 credits for each autocomplete call that returns suggestions, so at most 14 credits for expand 'none', 70 for 'questions' (the default), 196 for 'alphabet' (210 for an Arabic seed) and 217 for 'all'; it stops early once limit ideas are found, which is 12. Set fresh to true to search the results page live; autocomplete is always live.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "seed": "<seed>"
    },
    "name": "keyword_ideas"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gl`	No
`hl`	No
`seed`	Yes
`fresh`	No
`limit`	No
`expand`	No
`location`	No
`location_code`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint by disclosing credit pricing per mode (7 live / 1 cached, +7 per autocomplete call), the 14/70/196/210/217 ceilings, early termination once `limit` is reached, cache-vs-live behavior of the `fresh` flag, and Arabic seed support. These are exactly the cost and side-effect facts an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and output shape, then the capability and cost details. The credit enumeration is long and dense but each figure changes a real decision (which expand mode to pick), so little is wasted.

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?

For an 8-parameter, open-world read with no output schema, the description covers output shape (sources + intent label), cost model, and stopping behavior. It falls short on the geographic/language parameters and on the mismatch between the stated default limit and the schema.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains `expand` values and their costs, `fresh`, and `limit` behavior well, but `gl`, `hl`, `location`, and `location_code` are never mentioned. Note the description says the limit 'is 12', which conflicts with the schema default of 50 and will confuse an agent relying on it.

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?

States a specific output (keyword ideas) generated from named sources (Google autocomplete incl. question words/alphabet, People Also Ask, related searches), with cleaning/de-duplication and intent labelling. This is clearly distinct from siblings like google_serp or ai_answers, which return page content rather than candidate keywords.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than prescribed: 'Ideas only: no search volumes' and the expand cost ladder tell an agent what the tool is good for and how expensive each mode is, but no sibling tool is named as an alternative and no when-not-to-use condition is stated.

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

All Fenlight tools Inspect

Try in Browser

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

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?