Skip to main content
Glama

Suggest related keywords

keyword_suggestions
Read-only

Expand a seed keyword into related keyword suggestions for a store/country. Use it to grow a keyword list before profiling or checking ranks. Costs 5 credits.

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": {
      "store": "<store>",
      "country": "<country>",
      "keyword": "<keyword>"
    },
    "name": "keyword_suggestions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many rows to return, up to 200.
storeYesWhich app store: "android" (Google Play) or "ios" (App Store).
countryYesTwo-letter ISO country code, e.g. "US", "GB", "DE".
keywordYesA single search term, e.g. "habit tracker".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's main added value is the 5-credit cost, which is not captured anywhere in structured fields and matters for tool selection. It does not describe result volume or pagination behavior, but the limit parameter in the schema partly covers that.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage and cost, with no filler. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

Covers purpose, intent, scope, and the credit cost for a low-complexity read-only tool with full schema documentation. Only minor gaps remain, such as not clarifying how this differs from the worldwide variant or other keyword generation siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter including enums and examples documented in the schema itself. The description only echoes 'store/country' and adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Expand a seed keyword into related keyword suggestions') and scopes it to a store/country. This implicitly separates it from keyword_suggestions_worldwide, though the sibling is never named.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete usage context: grow a keyword list before profiling or checking ranks. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g., generate_keywords or keyword_app_suggestions) or stating when not to use it.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.