Skip to main content
Glama
BACH-AI-Tools

Semrush Keyword Magic Tool MCP Server

by BACH-AI-Tools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Semrush Keyword Magic Tool MCP Server

English | 简体中文 | 繁體中文

用于访问 Semrush Keyword Magic Tool API 的 MCP 服务器。

🚀 使用 EMCP 平台快速体验

EMCP 是一个强大的 MCP 服务器管理平台，让您无需手动配置即可快速使用各种 MCP 服务器！

快速开始：

  1. 🌐 访问 EMCP 平台

  2. 📝 注册并登录账号

  3. 🎯 进入 MCP 广场，浏览所有可用的 MCP 服务器

  4. 🔍 搜索或找到本服务器（bach-semrush_keyword_magic_tool）

  5. 🎉 点击 "安装 MCP" 按钮

  6. ✅ 完成！即可在您的应用中使用

EMCP 平台优势：

  • ✨ 零配置：无需手动编辑配置文件

  • 🎨 可视化管理：图形界面轻松管理所有 MCP 服务器

  • 🔐 安全可靠：统一管理 API 密钥和认证信息

  • 🚀 一键安装：MCP 广场提供丰富的服务器选择

  • 📊 使用统计：实时查看服务调用情况

立即访问 EMCP 平台 开始您的 MCP 之旅！

Related MCP server: seo-data-api-mcp-server

简介

这是一个 MCP 服务器，用于访问 Semrush Keyword Magic Tool API。

  • PyPI 包名: bach-semrush_keyword_magic_tool

  • 版本: 1.0.0

  • 传输协议: stdio

安装

从 PyPI 安装:

pip install bach-semrush_keyword_magic_tool

从源码安装:

pip install -e .

运行

方式 1: 使用 uvx（推荐，无需安装）

# 运行（uvx 会自动安装并运行）
uvx --from bach-semrush_keyword_magic_tool bach_semrush_keyword_magic_tool

# 或指定版本
uvx --from bach-semrush_keyword_magic_tool@latest bach_semrush_keyword_magic_tool

方式 2: 直接运行（开发模式）

python server.py

方式 3: 安装后作为命令运行

# 安装
pip install bach-semrush_keyword_magic_tool

# 运行（命令名使用下划线）
bach_semrush_keyword_magic_tool

配置

API 认证

此 API 需要认证。请设置环境变量:

export API_KEY="your_api_key_here"

环境变量

变量名

说明

必需

API_KEY

API 密钥

是

PORT

不适用

否

HOST

不适用

否

在 Cursor 中使用

编辑 Cursor MCP 配置文件 ~/.cursor/mcp.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "bach-semrush_keyword_magic_tool": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["--from", "bach-semrush_keyword_magic_tool", "bach_semrush_keyword_magic_tool"],
      "env": {
        "API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

在 Claude Desktop 中使用

编辑 Claude Desktop 配置文件 claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "bach-semrush_keyword_magic_tool": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["--from", "bach-semrush_keyword_magic_tool", "bach_semrush_keyword_magic_tool"],
      "env": {
        "API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

可用工具

此服务器提供以下工具:

keyword_overview_analysis

Keyword Overview analysis

端点: GET /global-volume

参数:

  • keyword (string) 必需: Example value: ai tools

  • country (string) 必需: Example value: us

keyword_magic_tool

Find millions of keyword suggestions for your SEO. Enter a topic and get your list of best keywords for you

端点: GET /keyword-research

参数:

  • keyword (string) 必需: Example value: email marketing

  • country (string) 必需: Example value: us

  • languagecode (string): Example value: te

questions

Questions

端点: GET /Question-keyword-research-More

参数:

  • keyword (string) 必需: Example value: ai tools

  • country (string) 必需: Example value: us

技术栈

  • 传输协议: stdio

  • HTTP 客户端: httpx

许可证

MIT License - 详见 LICENSE 文件。

开发

此服务器由 API-to-MCP 工具生成。

版本: 1.0.0

Available Tools

3 tools
keyword_magic_toolB

Find millions of keyword suggestions for your SEO. Enter a topic and get your list of best keywords for you

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryYesExample value: us
keywordYesExample value: email marketing
languagecodeNoExample value: te

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'a list of best keywords' but does not disclose how results are sorted, any rate limits, or limitations. The read-only nature is implied but not stated, which is a gap for an agent.

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?

The description is two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core value proposition ('Find millions of keyword suggestions') and immediately states the input/output. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must sufficiently explain usage and returns. While it mentions generating a keyword list, it omits the required 'country' parameter, which could mislead an agent into thinking only a topic is needed. The description is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with example values for all parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only the term 'topic' for the 'keyword' parameter and says nothing about the required 'country' or optional 'languagecode' parameters, so it does not enhance meaning beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Find millions of keyword suggestions for your SEO.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('keyword suggestions'), and the action is distinct from siblings like 'keyword_overview_analysis' (analysis) and 'questions' (question generation).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for keyword research ('Enter a topic and get your list of best keywords'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so it earns an 'implied usage' score rather than a clearer contextual guideline.

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

keyword_overview_analysisD

Keyword Overview analysis

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryYesExample value: us
keywordYesExample value: ai tools

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavioral traits. It merely states 'analysis' with no details on whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, what the output format is, or any constraints. This is even less informative than typical mutation descriptions.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short, but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. It does not include essential structural elements like purpose, expected input semantics, or output behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has only two params and no output schema or annotations, the description still fails to provide minimal context. It does not explain what kind of analysis is performed, what the result looks like, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving the agent completely uninformed.

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 the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the example values in the schema provide some format guidance. The description does not enhance the semantic understanding of 'keyword' or 'country' beyond what is already present.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Keyword Overview analysis' essentially restates the tool name without a specific verb or resource. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like keyword_magic_tool or questions, and it lacks actionable clarity about what the tool actually does.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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

questionsD

Questions

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryYesExample value: us
keywordYesExample value: ai tools

TDQS

D1.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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 offers nothing beyond the word 'Questions', with no mention of side effects, permissions, return behavior, or other operation characteristics.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short, which could be seen as concise, but it under-specifies and offers zero actionable content. It is not effectively structured or front-loaded; it is merely a placeholder.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters with example values, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the tool's purpose, return values, or relationship to sibling tools, making it inadequate for an AI agent.

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% because both parameters have description fields, even though those are only 'Example value' strings. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is warranted. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema provides minimal example-based hints.

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

Purpose1/5

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

Tautological: description restates name/title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without a basis for selecting it.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 3 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedkeyword_magic_tool
    • First observedkeyword_overview_analysis
    • First observedquestions
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation4/5

keyword_overview_analysis and keyword_magic_tool are clearly distinct (one provides metrics for a specific keyword, the other generates suggestions). The questions tool is somewhat ambiguous in name but appears to target a specific keyword type, so it is distinguishable.

Naming Consistency3/5

Two tools share a 'keyword_' prefix, but the third is simply 'questions', breaking the pattern. There is no consistent verb_noun structure, making naming conventions mixed though still readable.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools is a reasonable number for a focused keyword research server. It covers the core capabilities without being bloated, though it is slightly sparse.

Completeness4/5

The set covers keyword overview and keyword suggestion discovery, which are central to the domain. Questions adds a specialized angle, but common operations like keyword filtering or clustering are missing, leaving minor gaps.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Semrush MCP Server

    metehan777
    F
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides AI assistants with access to Semrush SEO API functionality including domain analytics, keyword research, backlink analysis, and competitor insights.
    7
    16
    -

  • seo-data-api-mcp-server

    Teake1404
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables to access SE Ranking SEO data through natural language queries, providing keyword analysis, competitor research, and performance tracking.
    28
    1
    Apache 2.0

  • DataForSEO MCP Server

    facundozupel
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables professional SEO/SEM research with geolocalized keyword discovery, competitor analysis, and SERP ranking insights using DataForSEO API.
    -

  • MCP DataForSEO Server

    kevinmaqueda
    F
    license
    B
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables SEO analysis and data retrieval through DataForSEO API, including keyword research, backlinks, competitor analysis, and on-page audits.
    24
    -