Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentSEO MCP Server

AgentSEO MCP Server

by AgentSEO-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

AgentSEO Local Visibility Track

agentseo_local_visibility_track
Destructive

Track local search visibility for a domain across keywords and locations; each call uses AgentSEO credits, and repeating can create new charged work.

Instructions

Track local visibility for a domain across keywords and locations. 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": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "keywords": "<keywords>",
      "locations": "<locations>"
    },
    "name": "agentseo_local_visibility_track"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
syncNoRequest 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.
domainYesWebsite hostname to track across the supplied keywords and markets, for example example.com. Type: String. Required.
keywordsYesSearch phrases to evaluate or associate with the supplied page. Type: Array. Minimum: 1 items. Maximum: 5 items. Required.
languageNoSupported search language code, for example en for English. Type: String. Default: "en".en
locationsYesSupported geographic market names to check, for example Austin, Texas, United States; each keyword/location combination contributes work. Type: Array. Minimum: 1 items. Maximum: 3 items. Required.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed7 schema fields changedv0.1.5
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Previous value: -"Domain to track"New value: +"Website hostname to track across the supplied keywords and markets, for example example.com. Type: String. Required."
    • addedInput schema / properties / keywords / description
      Added value: +"Search phrases to evaluate or associate with the supplied page. Type: Array. Minimum: 1 items. Maximum: 5 items. Required."
    • addedInput schema / properties / keywords / items / description
      Added value: +"One search keyword or phrase, not a comma-separated list. 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 / locations / description
      Added value: +"Supported geographic market names to check, for example Austin, Texas, United States; each keyword/location combination contributes work. Type: Array. Minimum: 1 items. Maximum: 3 items. Required."
    • addedInput schema / properties / locations / items / description
      Added value: +"One supported geographic market name, for example Austin, Texas, United States. Type: String. Required."
    • 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."
  2. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag readOnly=false, idempotent=false and destructive=true, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real business context by disclosing that calls consume AgentSEO credits and that re-invocation creates new billed work. It stops short of saying what the destructive hint actually affects (data or just credits).

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 short sentences with zero filler; the scope statement comes first and the billing warning second, which is the correct order for an agent scanning for capability before risk.

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?

With no output schema, the description should say what comes back (a job handle and/or visibility figures) and how to retrieve results, which it does not. The charged-call warning is helpful for a costly, non-idempotent operation, but an agent still cannot tell from this text alone what a successful response looks like.

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 five parameters are already documented in detail, including the sync/polling behavior. The description only echoes the keywords and locations dimensions and adds no syntax, format, or limit information beyond the schema, which meets the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Track local visibility for a domain") plus the two governing dimensions (keywords and locations), which separates it from the purely local-audit sibling. It does not explicitly name agentseo_rank_track as the non-local alternative, so the boundary between the two rank-ish tools is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer this over agentseo_rank_track for non-local tracking, or over agentseo_local_audit for diagnostic work. The only guidance-like sentence, about repeat calls creating charged work, is a cost caution rather than a selection criterion.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools