Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unilytics MCP Server

Unilytics MCP Server

Official
by TeamUnilytics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

add_tracked_keywords

Idempotent

Add keywords, competitors, or target locations to a project, appending to existing lists without duplicates and requiring at least one item.

Instructions

Add tracked keywords, competitors, and/or target locations to a project.

Appends to the project's existing lists (no duplicates, nothing removed). At least one of
keywords, competitors or locations is required.

Args:
    project_id: The project UUID (from list_projects or create_project).
    keywords: Keywords to add — a list, or a comma-separated string.
    competitors: Competitor domains to add — a list, or comma-separated string.
    locations: Target locations to add — a list, or comma-separated string.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "add_tracked_keywords"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordsNo
locationsNo
project_idYes
competitorsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / config
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": null,
-  "title": "config",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description reinforces this by explaining the append/dedup semantics ('no duplicates, nothing removed'), which tells an agent mutations are additive and safe to retry. It stops short of saying what the response contains or how many items were added.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the action, immediately followed by the merge semantics and the at-least-one requirement, then a compact Args block. Some mild redundancy between the opening sentence and the Args field names, but nothing extraneous.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a four-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers inputs, constraints and mutation semantics thoroughly. The main residual gap is return-value behavior (counts of added vs skipped items), which an agent might want but cannot infer.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: each of the four parameters is explained, including that keywords/competitors/locations accept either a list or a comma-separated string, and that project_id is a project UUID obtained elsewhere. This adds meaning well beyond the bare anyOf schema.

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 (add) and specific resources (tracked keywords, competitors, target locations) scoped to a project. It is clearly distinguishable from create_project/list_projects, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similarly named add_tracked_prompts sibling.

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?

Gives a real invocation constraint ('At least one of keywords, competitors or locations is required') and the provenance of project_id (from list_projects or create_project). It does not say when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as add_tracked_prompts, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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