get_serp_keywordsTracked SEO keywords with current rankings, search volume, intent and rank trend. Requires the SERP module.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No | Free-text keyword filter. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that only tracked keywords are returned and that the SERP module is required—an authorization/module prerequisite. It does not cover error conditions or response behavior, but the annotations lower the bar.
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 two sentences and about 15 words total. It front-loads the key return fields and adds the module prerequisite without any filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and a full output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what is returned and the module requirement. The annotations confirm safety, and the output schema covers return structure, so there are no critical gaps.
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 fully describes the single optional 'search' parameter as a free-text keyword filter, with 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource (tracked SEO keywords) and the specific data returned (current rankings, search volume, intent, rank trend). The verb is implied by the tool name 'Get'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool get_seo_queries, though the specific fields provide some differentiation.
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 description states the prerequisite 'Requires the SERP module' and implies usage for viewing keyword rankings, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_seo_queries or search. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.
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 target distinct data points (e.g., get_analytics_summary vs get_brand_score). However, 'search' and 'search_catalog' have overlapping functionality and could cause confusion, and 'fetch' is a helper tied to 'search', adding minor ambiguity.
The majority use consistent verb_noun snake_case (e.g., get_inventory, list_stores). Exceptions like 'fetch' and 'search' (without object) break the pattern, but they are few.
43 tools is excessive for a data-retrieval-only API. Many get_* and search_* tools could be consolidated (e.g., search_catalog, search_inventory, search_orders are similar). The large number will overwhelm an agent.
The tool set is entirely read-only (get, search, list, fetch). There are no create, update, or delete tools, which is a critical gap for managing e-commerce operations. Agents can only view data, not act on it.