Get keywords that a URL ranks for
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| num | No | Number of results to return (max 1000) | |
| url | Yes | URL to analyze | |
| 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 bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the core action ('Get keywords that a URL ranks for') without mentioning pagination, rate limits, error cases, authentication needs, or what the response contains. This is minimal behavioral transparency.
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, brief sentence that is front-loaded and contains no fluff. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, and 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?
The tool is simple with well-documented parameters, but the description is terse. It does not explain the output shape (since there is no output schema), nor does it differentiate among the many sibling keyword/URL tools. This is adequate but leaves noticeable gaps for an agent to choose and use it confidently.
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 complete descriptions for all three parameters (url, num, country), so the schema carries the semantic weight. The description itself adds no parameter-specific details, but since schema_description_coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get keywords that a URL ranks for' clearly states the verb and resource, and the focus on 'URL' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain_keywords. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling or explain the distinction, so it lacks differentiation beyond the URL wording.
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 the tool is for retrieving keyword rankings for a specific URL, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over get_domain_keywords or get_related_keywords. There are no alternatives mentioned, no prerequisites, and no exclusions, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.