nexscope_seo_domain_ranked_keywordsDomain Organic Ranked Keywords. Bounded Nexscope database facts with explicit missing evidence. One fixed task; no pagination. Missing values are not zero. Prices and publication are unapproved. Successful owner-only results remain available in call history. Seven-day source-freshness rules apply only to dependent requests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| market | No | US | |
| target | Yes | ||
| language | No | en |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds some data-quality caveats such as missing values not being zero, unapproved prices/publication, owner-only call history, and freshness rules, which is useful context beyond annotations but remains cryptic and lacks clear operational detail.
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 short but poorly structured: the opening repeats the title and the following sentences are cryptic policy fragments rather than a front-loaded explanation of purpose and operation. Several sentences do not earn their place because they do not help an agent invoke the tool correctly.
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?
With no output schema, 0% schema description coverage, and no parameter explanations, the description is not complete enough to guide an agent. It omits the core information needed: what the tool returns, what the required target is, and how to choose it over related SEO tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the four parameters, but it does not. It never clarifies what 'target' means, what market/language constraints do, or how limit interacts with the stated 'no pagination' behavior.
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 essentially restates the title, 'Domain Organic Ranked Keywords,' without stating what the tool returns in concrete terms or how it differs from the many sibling SEO keyword tools. Phrases like 'bounded Nexscope database facts' are vague and do not clarify the operation.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as domain_rank_overview or domain_keyword_intersection. 'One fixed task; no pagination' is not actionable usage guidance and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
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.