Skip to main content
Glama
TeamUnilytics

Unilytics MCP Server

Official

aeo_cluster_by_urls

Read-only

Cluster search prompts by shared Google SERP URLs and assign each cluster the most relevant page. Uses rank-weighted matching and flags uncertain joins for manual review.

Instructions

Cluster prompts by shared Google SERP URLs, then assign each cluster a page.

Greedy centroid assignment on an ABSOLUTE shared-URL count (no transitive chaining). A join on
exactly one shared URL is allowed only if that URL is specific (low corpus document frequency),
is not a generic hub host, and the prompt is not a brand comparison — and such joins are NEVER
auto-accepted (they come back with needs_review=true). Query-drift SERPs are quarantined.
Page assignment is rank-weighted: a rank-1 brand hit outweighs a rank-10 one.

items = [{id, text, impressions?, serp: [{url, rank, near_miss}], serp_urls?: [...] (legacy),
          citation_urls?: [...] (a SEPARATE signal — never joins clusters), spell?, mapped_pages?}]
config = per-project {brand:{domain}, competitors[], cluster:{T, one_shared_max_df, hub_hosts,...},
         signals:{a_min_hits, a_high_confidence_max_rank}} — nothing client-specific is hardcoded.

Returns {clusters, assignments, n_items, n_clusters, needs_review, n_quarantined, caveat}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes
configNo
page_inventoryNo
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: greedy centroid assignment, absolute shared-URL counts, join eligibility rules, quarantine behavior, and rank-weighted page assignment. It also discloses that certain joins are never auto-accepted and come back with needs_review=true. This far exceeds annotation coverage.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It opens with the core purpose, then details algorithm, inputs, config, and output in a logical flow. No filler or repetition; the structure mirrors the tool's execution process.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the high complexity (nested objects, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers input formats, config schema, algorithm behavior, output fields, and edge cases (needs_review, quarantine). An agent could confidently invoke this tool based solely on the description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains the 'items' structure (including legacy fields and citation_urls as a separate signal) and the 'config' structure (per-project, nothing hardcoded). However, it does not explicitly describe the 'page_inventory' parameter, leaving a minor gap in an otherwise detailed explanation.

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 states the tool clusters prompts by shared Google SERP URLs and assigns each cluster a page. This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly differentiates it from siblings like aeo_cluster_prompts, which likely cluster by different criteria.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (for clustering prompts by URL overlap) and explains key algorithmic constraints (e.g., no transitive chaining, quarantine of query-drift SERPs, needs_review for certain joins). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the behavior is well-defined enough for an agent to infer appropriate use.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TeamUnilytics/unilytics-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server