Exepal

Google rank check

seo_rank

Read-onlyIdempotent

Live Google position (top 20) of a website for up to 10 keywords, with the ranking URL and the top 3 domains. Use to check right now where a site ranks on Google for specific keywords (one country). Returns ranking count and results[] {keyword, position (null when not in the top 20), url, title, top3[] domains}. Not charged when the data source fails. Price: $0.10 per call from Exepal credit; not charged if the call fails.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "keywords": "<keywords>"
    },
    "name": "seo_rank"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Your site, e.g. notion.com
`country`	No	Two-letter country, default us
`keywords`	Yes	1-10 keywords to check

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`depth`	No	Results checked per keyword
`domain`	No
`country`	No
`ranking`	No	Keywords where the site is in the top results
`results`	No
`language`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the description's added value is in the operational detail it supplies: the top-20 cutoff, null position outside the top 20, the $0.10 per-call price, and the no-charge-on-failure policy. These are material facts an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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 capability and scope, followed by usage and cost. Slightly overpacked with a full return-shape recap and a redundant restatement of the failure policy ('Not charged when the data source fails' and 'not charged if the call fails').

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?

An output schema exists, so spelling out 'results[] {keyword, position, url, title, top3[]}' is partly redundant, but pricing, failure billing, and the top-20 null semantics round out what an agent needs. Nothing essential is missing for a low-complexity, 3-parameter read tool.

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 all three parameters are already documented. The description adds a little (one country per call, up to 10 keywords) but mostly restates schema constraints like maxItems=10 and does not explain country-code behavior beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Live Google position (top 20) of a website') plus scope limits (10 keywords, ranking URL, top 3 domains). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling SEO tools like seo_gap and seo_report, which are not live rank checks.

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 clear when-to-use trigger: 'check right now where a site ranks on Google for specific keywords (one country)'. The 'right now' framing implicitly separates it from historical/gap/report siblings, but no sibling is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance.

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

All Exepal 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?