keyso-mcp

keyso_get_serp_id_competitor_pages

Retrieve competitor pages from a saved SERP result by ID. Filter by organic or paid results, pagination, and GET parameters to analyze search landscape.

Instructions

Онлайн парсер выдачи - страницы конкурентов Method: GET Path: /serp//competitor-pages Пример запроса https://api.keys.so/serp/<id>/competitor-pages

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "keyso_get_serp_id_competitor_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	in: path (auto-detected)
`page`	No	in: query \| Порядковый номер страницы результатов
`token`	No	API token override (fallback: KEYSO_TOKEN env)
`context`	No	in: query \| Учитывать данные контекстной рекламы
`organic`	No	in: query \| Учитывать данные органической выдачи
`base_url`	No	Override API base URL
`per_page`	No	in: query \| Количество результатов на одной странице
`paramsGET`	No	in: query \| Учитывать GET-параметры

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state Method: GET, which implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about required SERP state, response format, pagination behavior, authentication, or rate limits.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and includes useful low-level details (method, path, example URL), but the opening phrase 'Онлайн парсер выдачи - страницы конкурентов' mostly restates the tool name and adds little. Structure is acceptable, but not optimally front-loaded with a clear purpose statement.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It provides the endpoint and an example request, but omits return value semantics, expected response shape, selection guidance among many similar sibling tools, and any behavioral caveats.

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 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the example demonstrates the path parameter but does not clarify what values are expected or how the query parameters interact.

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 description names the resource (competitor pages from a SERP) and provides the exact endpoint path, so an agent can infer the operation. However, it lacks a clear verb+resource statement and does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings such as keyso_get_serp_id_competitor_domains.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 tool versus alternatives. The path and example show how to call it, but the description does not explain which scenario requires competitor pages rather than competitor domains, reports, or other SERP endpoints.

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

Deploy Server