keyword_volumeSearch volume and difficulty for keywords you name, each with a verdict on whether this particular site can realistically reach it. The verdict is measured against the difficulty of keywords the site already ranks for, not a universal threshold.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Search Console property | |
| keywords | Yes | Up to 100 keywords |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the relative nature of the verdict, which adds transparency. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or potential side effects, leaving gaps for a read tool.
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 long, front-loads the primary function, and contains no redundant information. Every clause serves a purpose.
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 no output schema, the description provides essential information about the tool's output (volume, difficulty, verdict) but omits details on return format, error handling, or limitations. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a low-complexity 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the verdict's relativity, which clarifies output semantics, but does not further elaborate on parameter meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'site' is jargon).
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 that the tool provides search volume, difficulty, and a relative verdict for given keywords. It distinguishes itself by specifying that the verdict is relative to the site's existing difficulty, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools.
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 implies usage for evaluating specific keywords for a site but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like competitor_gap or query_match. No when-not-to-use instructions 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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of SEO analysis: budget, backlinks, competitor gaps, indexing, keyword data, page performance, query insights, and SERP positions. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case noun_noun pattern (e.g., account_status, backlink_profile), making them predictable and easy to interpret.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for SEO analysis, covering key areas without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The tool set covers major SEO analysis domains (indexing, keywords, backlinks, competitors, on-page performance), but lacks a tool for tracking changes over time or providing actionable recommendations (e.g., fix suggestions).