keyword_generator[FREE] Generate keyword suggestions for any topic. Returns related terms with estimated intent. FR: Générer des suggestions de mots-clés pour un sujet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | The topic or seed keyword | |
| language | No | Target language | en |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the return type ('related terms with estimated intent') and implies a non-mutating operation, but lacks detail on data sources, rate limits, or the meaning of 'estimated intent.' The '[FREE]' tag hints at cost but is not substantive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The French translation is somewhat redundant in an English-language description, but it is not distracting and the overall content remains efficient. The '[FREE]' label is minor but not a major issue.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the purpose and the type of output. It does not elaborate on the format of the returned terms, but this is acceptable for a lightweight suggestion tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents both parameters fully: 'topic' described as 'The topic or seed keyword' and 'language' as 'Target language' with an enum. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool 'Generate keyword suggestions for any topic' with a specific verb and resource. It also describes the output ('Returns related terms with estimated intent'), and this tool is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on SEO audits and site checks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for any topic' provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, but given the sibling list, the use case is unambiguous and no exclusions are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct targets, but seo_audit, seo_plan, and seo_score overlap in purpose—all evaluate SEO health with varying depth, which could confuse an agent. noindex_checker and ai_visibility_score also both touch indexing/crawling, though from different angles.
Tool names are predominantly descriptive noun phrases in snake_case (broken_link_check, keyword_generator, seo_audit), but 'discover' is a lone verb and there's a mix of suffixes (_check, _analyzer, _validator, _score). Still, the pattern is readable and mostly consistent.
With 12 tools, the server covers a broad SEO toolkit without overwhelming. Each tool adds a distinct diagnostic capability, and the count fits well within the ideal 3-15 range.
The suite covers crawling, indexing, content, schema, performance, and overall audits—solid diagnostic coverage. Minor gaps like sitemap validation or backlink analysis exist, but the core SEO workflows are well supported.