Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unilytics MCP Server

Unilytics MCP Server

Official
by TeamUnilytics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

aeo_serp_urls

Read-only

Fetch top Google organic results and rankings for a keyword or prompt, returning URLs, rank positions, near-miss entries, and spelling suggestions to assess SERP visibility.

Instructions

Top Google organic results for a keyword/prompt, WITH RANK.

Returns {results: [{url, rank, near_miss}], urls: [top-N urls], spell}. Fetches the top-20;
`near_miss` marks ranks beyond top_n (a real ranking, but weak evidence — use it to find
refresh candidates, not to claim the page ranks). `spell` carries Google's did_you_mean /
showing_results_for so callers can detect query drift.

[Provider: DataForSEO]

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": {
      "keyword": "<keyword>"
    },
    "name": "aeo_serp_urls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
top_nNo
keywordYes

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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context: it fetches a fixed top-20 regardless, explains the near_miss tier as weak evidence, and notes the spell field for detecting query drift. That is substantive beyond the structured fields. It omits cost/latency or provider auth requirements, which keeps it at 4.

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 core verb and resource, then the return shape, then the caveats. Each clause carries information; the provider tag at the end is the only low-value token. Slightly parenthetical but efficient.

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?

With only two parameters, no output schema, and simple annotations, the description covers purpose, return shape, and the main interpretive pitfall. The remaining gap is top_n behavior at the edges (bounds, defaults), which an agent would have to guess.

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 0% for both parameters, so the description has to carry the load. It clarifies that `keyword` may be a prompt and that `top_n` determines which ranks become near_miss, which is meaningful. However, it never states the default, bounds, or how top_n relates to the fixed 20-result fetch cap.

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 and resource: top Google organic results for a keyword/prompt, with rank. The 'WITH RANK' emphasis signals a distinct output from a plain SERP listing. It does not name or differentiate itself from the sibling `serp_results`, so it stops short of a 5.

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 near_miss guidance is genuinely useful ('use it to find refresh candidates, not to claim the page ranks'), but that is guidance about interpreting output rather than about when to pick this tool over `serp_results` or `aeo_prompt_volume`. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement for 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