SEO and Keyword Data API

Ranked keywords of a domain (up to 100)

ranked_keywords

Read-onlyIdempotent

Ranked keywords: the Google keywords a domain ranks for, each with its position, ranking URL, estimated traffic and the keyword's search volume, CPC, difficulty and intent; up to 100 in one $0.048 call. Use when you need a site's or competitor's organic keywords (bare domain; www. is dropped). A domain with no data returns empty results (still charged). Bad input is free; upstream errors are not charged. Price: $0.048 per successful call, paid over x402 (USDC on Base); pass the payment in _meta["x402/payment"].

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": "ranked_keywords"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum keywords to return (1-100). Defaults to 20.
`target`	Yes	Bare domain like example.com (no scheme, path or port; a leading www. is dropped).
`country`	No	Optional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code or country name, used when locationCode is absent (uk = gb).
`languageCode`	No	Language code (2-letter). Defaults to en. An unsupported location falls back to 2840 (United States) with en (or the requested language if the United States offers it); a supported location with a language it does not offer uses that location's default language (en if offered). Either way market.fallback is true and market.warnings says what was used.
`locationCode`	No	Google Ads location code (geo target ID). Defaults to 2840 (United States); an unsupported code falls back to 2840 (United States, market.fallback).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/open-world/idempotent, and the description adds material behavior the agent could not infer: a per-call price of $0.048, that empty results are still charged, that invalid input is free while upstream errors are not, and the x402/USDC payment flow via _meta['x402/payment']. This is exactly the kind of risk-and-cost disclosure that changes invocation decisions.

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?

The returned fields are front-loaded, followed by usage context and then cost/payment terms, so an agent can stop reading once it has what it needs. The single dense opening clause packs a lot of field names into one sentence, but no sentence is pure filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing results and does so field by field, while also covering input normalization, charging edge cases, and the required payment envelope. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and avoid surprise charges is missing.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including the bare-domain rule and location/language fallbacks. The description's 'bare domain; www. is dropped' and 'up to 100 in one call' repeat schema content rather than adding syntax or defaults the schema lacks.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+object: 'the Google keywords a domain ranks for,' and enumerates the returned fields (position, ranking URL, traffic, volume, CPC, difficulty, intent), so an agent knows exactly what resource it gets. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as keywords_for_site or keyword_gap, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

'Use when you need a site's or competitor's organic keywords' states a clear selection context, including the competitor-research case. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for overlapping tools like keywords_for_site, so it stops short of full routing instructions.

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

All SEO and Keyword Data API 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.