Skip to main content
Glama

SERP Checker

get_v1_serp_checker

SERP Checker Group: SERP & Ranking. Billing per call: 1 Credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryNo
keywordNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

D1.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. However, it says nothing about side effects (e.g., whether it is read-only, whether it mutates data, rate limits, or billing implications). The only mention of billing is 'Billing per call: 1 Credits,' which is a cost hint but not a behavioral trait. Without any operational or safety information, the agent cannot anticipate consequences of invocation.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely brief (one line), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It includes irrelevant billing information that belongs in pricing metadata, not the description. Real conciseness would convey the purpose in as few words as possible, but here the brevity comes at the cost of any utility. Therefore, the low word count is not an asset; it is a deficiency.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool is likely a SERP ranking checker, but the description provides no information about its function, acceptable inputs, output format (no output schema), or edge cases. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of context, and it fails to provide any operational detail. The tool has only two simple parameters, but even so, the description is incomplete; it does not even name the parameters.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The parameters are country and keyword, but neither the schema nor the description provides semantics: no explanation that country might default to 'us' if omitted, or that keyword is essential for a SERP check. With zero coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not. Baseline for 0 params is 4, but here there are 2 parameters and no extra info, making the score 1.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description says 'SERP Checker Group: SERP & Ranking. Billing per call: 1 Credits.' This does not state what the tool actually does (e.g., check search engine results page rankings for a keyword). It is almost entirely billing and group information, leaving the agent with no clear action of 'SERP Checker' from the title and sibling tools, so purpose is ambiguous at best. The tool name itself is technical and unhelpful. This is a severe gap: the purpose is not clarified beyond the name and title, which provide no actionable description.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

The description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is for SERP tracking or ranking checks, nor does it differentiate from siblings like get_v1_keyword_rank_checker or get_v1_website_traffic_checker. There is no context on appropriate scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The agent is left to guess based only on the name, which is insufficient.

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.

Resources