Retrieve search volume, competition, and CPC data for keywords to assess their viability for SEO strategies.
Validate keywords: get search volume, competition, CPC. Credits: varies.
Requires VISIBLYAI_API_KEY. Use get_account_info to check your balance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top_n | No | ||
| keywords | Yes | ||
| language | No | German | |
| location | No | Germany |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses credit consumption and API key requirement, but omits details like rate limits, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only. The output schema exists but the description itself is minimal on behavior.
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 concise with two sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the requirement of API key and credit info could be structured better (e.g., a separate notes section).
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?
Given the output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers prerequisites and cost but lacks information on error scenarios, pagination, or how credits are calculated. For a tool with 4 parameters, the description is moderately complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. However, it does not explain the parameters (keywords, location, language, top_n) beyond their names. The names are self-explanatory but no additional guidance on formats or constraints is given.
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 clearly states it validates keywords by providing search volume, competition, and CPC. It distinguishes from sibling tools like classify_keywords_advanced, which classify rather than validate.
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 mentions prerequisites (VISIBLYAI_API_KEY) and suggests checking balance with get_account_info. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools for similar metrics or specify when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.