Rillow

Get ranked keywords

get_ranked_keywords

The keywords any domain, page or folder ranks for in Google in the project's country, with position, URL, volume and difficulty, highest volume first. Pass a page URL to see what one competitor article ranks for, or a folder like example.com/blog/. For the project's own site, find_keywords without a seed is free. For one competitor's keywords the project lacks, use get_competitors with competitor. Uses up to 1.1 credits, then free for a day. Positions and volumes are DataForSEO estimates.

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "get_ranked_keywords"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	How many, 50 by default
`offset`	No	Skip this many, for the next page
`target`	Yes	A domain like example.com, or a page or folder URL
`min_volume`	No	Minimum monthly searches
`project_id`	No	Project id from list_projects. Leave it out when the user has one project.
`position_max`	No	Only keywords at this position or better

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: cost up to 1.1 credits then free for a day, and that positions/volumes are DataForSEO estimates rather than first-party data. This also implicitly explains why readOnlyHint is false despite the 'get' name. It stops short of covering pagination depth or result-size behavior, but the schema handles offset/limit.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before the cost and disambiguation notes. Dense but each sentence carries a distinct fact (scope, targeting, alternatives, credits, data source); no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, returned fields, sort order, cost model, data provenance, and sibling routing. There is no output schema to explain return values, and the description already names the key response fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds decision-level meaning for the required 'target': page URL vs folder URL vs bare domain select different scenarios. It also notes the highest-volume-first default ordering, which the schema does not state.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and full scope: keywords a domain/page/folder ranks for in Google within the project's country, plus the returned fields (position, URL, volume, difficulty) and sort order. This distinguishes it from find_keywords and get_competitors without needing their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit routing: pass a page URL for one competitor article, a folder path for a folder, use find_keywords without a seed (free) for the project's own site, and get_competitors with competitor for a competitor's missing keywords. Both the when and the alternatives are named.

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

All Rillow 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?