AgentSEO MCP Server

AgentSEO SERP Outline

agentseo_content_serp_outline

Destructive

Converts live SERP intent into a writer- and agent-ready page outline. Helps plan content structure, depth, and title options from a target keyword.

Instructions

Turn live SERP intent into a writer- and agent-ready page outline. Uses AgentSEO credits; repeating the call can create new charged work.

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": {
      "keyword": "<keyword>"
    },
    "name": "agentseo_content_serp_outline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sync`	No	Request a bounded wait for completion when true. The API can still return a pending job; retain its job ID and poll agentseo_job_status instead of repeating this charged call. False returns a queued job without waiting. Type: Boolean. Default: true.
`device`	No	Device search-result profile used for the analysis. Type: String. Accepted values: "desktop", "mobile". Default: "desktop".	desktop
`target`	No	Your target brand, domain or URL used to scope this workflow; supply the entity you want assessed. Type: String. Optional; no client default.
`keyword`	Yes	Search keyword or phrase to analyze for this workflow. Type: String. Required.
`language`	No	Supported search language code, for example en for English. Type: String. Default: "en".	en
`location`	No	Supported geographic search-market name, for example United States; this is not a coordinate pair. Type: String. Default: "United States".	United States
`outline_depth`	No	Amount of detail requested in the recommended content outline. Type: String. Accepted values: "brief", "standard", "detailed". Default: "standard".	standard
`include_title_options`	No	Include proposed page-title alternatives in the outline when true. Type: Boolean. Default: true.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv0.1.5Nov 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / device / description

Added value: +"Device search-result profile used for the analysis. Type: String. Accepted values: \"desktop\", \"mobile\". Default: \"desktop\"."

addedInput schema / properties / include_title_options / description

Added value: +"Include proposed page-title alternatives in the outline when true. Type: Boolean. Default: true."

changedInput schema / properties / keyword / description

Previous value: -"Target keyword"New value: +"Search keyword or phrase to analyze for this workflow. Type: String. Required."

addedInput schema / properties / language / description

Added value: +"Supported search language code, for example en for English. Type: String. Default: \"en\"."

addedInput schema / properties / location / description

Added value: +"Supported geographic search-market name, for example United States; this is not a coordinate pair. Type: String. Default: \"United States\"."

addedInput schema / properties / outline_depth / description

Added value: +"Amount of detail requested in the recommended content outline. Type: String. Accepted values: \"brief\", \"standard\", \"detailed\". Default: \"standard\"."

addedInput schema / properties / sync / description

Added value: +"Request a bounded wait for completion when true. The API can still return a pending job; retain its job ID and poll agentseo_job_status instead of repeating this charged call. False returns a queued job without waiting. Type: Boolean. Default: true."

changedInput schema / properties / target / description

Previous value: -"Optional target brand or domain"New value: +"Your target brand, domain or URL used to scope this workflow; supply the entity you want assessed. Type: String. Optional; no client default."

First observedv0.1.4Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare openWorldHint, non-idempotency, and destructiveHint, but the description adds specific billing behavior: "Uses AgentSEO credits; repeating the call can create new charged work." That is meaningful operational context beyond the annotation flags.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tightly written sentences front-load the main purpose and then add the critical cost warning. There is no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The purpose and charge warning are present, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, with no output schema and no sibling differentiation, the description does not explain the outline's return shape or when this tool is preferable to similar content-brief tools.

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%, so all eight parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a clear verb and output: "Turn live SERP intent into a writer- and agent-ready page outline." It is specific about what the tool produces, but it does not distinguish it from nearby siblings such as agentseo_content_brief or agentseo_analyze_serp.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The only directive is a warning about repeating the call, not about choosing this tool over siblings or when an outline is the right workflow step.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server