Skip to main content
Glama

get_keywords_by_url

Получить информацию о ключевых словах по url.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "page_url": "<page_url>"
    },
    "name": "get_keywords_by_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
page_urlYesURL страницы
per_pageNoКоличество ключевых слов, от 1 до 1000

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesИдентификатор задачи, по которому открывается её страница
organic_keywordsYesСписок ключевых слов
organic_keywords_totalYesОбщее количество ключевых слов

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination behavior, result volume, aggregation semantics, or read-only nature. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the front-loaded verb is good, yet nothing follows to disambiguate or guide.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with two parameters, no annotations, and many overlapping keyword siblings, the definition leaves the agent unable to confidently choose this tool or predict its scope.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both page_url and per_page (1-1000, default 20) documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting, but it does not clarify whether the URL must match an existing tracked page.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb and resource ('получить информацию о ключевых словах по url'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as get_keywords, get_keywords_summaries, or get_keywords_pages_summary, leaving the 'by url' scoping as the only differentiator.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many keyword-related siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer that the URL-based lookup is the distinguishing condition.

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