Assess keyword niche potential by analyzing Naver search volume, blog competition, and 12-month trends. Get a 0-100 score with A-F grade to decide if a keyword is worth targeting.
Calculate full niche score for a single keyword. Analyzes search volume (Naver SearchAd), blog competition, and 12-month trend to produce a 0-100 score with A-F grade.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | Keyword to analyze |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 does state the inputs and output (0-100 score with A-F grade) and identifies Naver SearchAd as a data source, but it does not detail side effects, external API dependencies, latency, error behavior, or whether the result includes component breakdowns.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence that states the action, scope, inputs, data sources, and output format without filler. Every clause contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what the tool does, what it analyzes, and what the result looks like. Minor gaps remain around grade thresholds and weighting of components, but these are not required for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the sole parameter 'keyword' is already documented as 'Keyword to analyze.' The description adds only the qualifier 'single keyword,' which is mild semantic reinforcement but not substantive new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and object: 'Calculate full niche score for a single keyword.' It clearly distinguishes this composite analysis tool from the sibling component tools by naming search volume, blog competition, and 12-month trend, and it defines the output as a 0-100 score with an A-F grade.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by calling this a 'full niche score' for a 'single keyword,' which suggests it should be used when a composite score is needed rather than one of the individual sibling tools like search_volume or trend. However, it never explicitly says when NOT to use it or names alternatives as preferred for narrower use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.