Get keywords that a domain ranks for
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| num | No | Number of results to return (max 1000) | |
| domain | Yes | Domain to analyze (e.g., example.com) | |
| country | No | Country code (empty string for Global, 'us' for United States, etc.) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the retrieval action and does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied by the verb 'Get' but not explicitly disclosed.
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 clear sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan and quickly understand.
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 fully described parameters, this is minimally adequate. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description does not explain the result structure or edge cases. In an environment with many sibling tools, more context about return shape or usage nuances would improve completeness.
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 provides descriptions for all three parameters (domain, num, country), so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable but does not elevate the score.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource as keywords associated with a domain, stating that they are keywords the domain ranks for. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related sibling tools like get_url_keywords or get_related_keywords, so it falls slightly short of a 5.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_url_keywords, get_related_keywords, or get_domain_traffic. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or fallback tools, leaving usage entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.