keyso-mcp

keyso_api_request

Send custom API requests to Keys.so to retrieve domain, keyword, and competitor SEO data using method, path, query, and body parameters.

Instructions

Universal request tool for Keys.so API

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": {
      "method": "<method>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "keyso_api_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	JSON body for write methods
`path`	Yes	Path like /report/simple/domain_dashboard
`query`	No	Query params object
`token`	No	API token override (fallback: KEYSO_TOKEN env)
`method`	Yes
`base_url`	No	Override API base URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it reveals none: no authentication/authorization notes, no rate-limit caveats, no mention that arbitrary mutating calls are possible, no response-shape hint. 'Request' gives no behavioral signal beyond what the name already implies.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is compact, but it is under-specification rather than useful conciseness. No structured, front-loaded guidance exists for a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a low-level universal API caller with no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, this one-line description is inadequate. It fails to explain expected output format, error behavior, URL/path construction, or when raw requests are appropriate, leaving the agent poorly equipped.

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 83%, with path, query, body, token, and base_url already documented in the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no parameter insight, but the schema carries the burden, keeping this at the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The phrase 'Universal request tool for Keys.so API' indicates this executes arbitrary Keys.so API calls, which is meaningful against the many sibling endpoint-specific tools. However, it is largely a restatement of the name and does not state its role as a fallback/raw-call tool or what operations it supports beyond the schema's method enum.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this generic tool versus the many sibling tools, nor any statement that it should be used only for endpoints without a dedicated tool. The agent must infer all selection logic.

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

Deploy Server