Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AutoRank MCP

AutoRank MCP

by RyanKramer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

autorank_free_tools

List all available SEO tools and their browser versions, including hidden ones, to see the full range of free tools accessible.

Instructions

List the browser versions of these tools, plus the ones not exposed here.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "autorank_free_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2/5.0
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 behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'browser versions' implies. The lack of any behavioral context is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely short and front-loaded, containing only one sentence. However, the sentence is cryptic and under-specified ('these tools', 'not exposed here'), so while it is concise, it does not earn its place by providing clear value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the description fails to explain the core concepts of the tool: what 'browser versions' are, what 'these tools' refers to, or what 'not exposed here' means. Given the ambiguity, the description is not complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is complete and no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to explain.

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 uses the verb 'List' but the resource is ambiguous: 'the browser versions of these tools, plus the ones not exposed here' does not clearly identify what is being listed or what 'these tools' refers to. It also does not differentiate this tool from the sibling tools, which are all similarly named SEO/utility tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. It doesn't state any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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