Check where a domain ranks for a specific keyword in Google top 100
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "check_ranking"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | Domain to check | |
| country | No | Country code | |
| keyword | No | Target keyword |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains the query logic but omits return format, output structure, potential limitations (e.g., top 100 only), or any side effects. It also does not state whether results are live or cached.
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 a single concise sentence with no redundant phrasing. It gets straight to the point and 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 lookup tool, the description covers the core function and scope (top 100), but with no output schema and no usage rules, the agent lacks information about the return value and required parameters (schema indicates none are required at top level, which is odd). It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
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?
Though schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are tautological ('Domain to check', 'Country code', 'Target keyword') and add no practical meaning. The tool description itself does not clarify formats, optionality, or examples, failing to help an agent construct valid calls.
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 states a specific action ('Check') with a clear resource ('domain ranks') and scope ('Google top 100'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like rank_tracker by indicating a one-off check rather than tracking over time.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or sibling tool comparisons. The intended context is implicit from the name and description only.
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.