Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
keyso-mcp

keyso-mcp

by abukreev-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

keyso_post_ai_tracker

Create an AI tracker project to monitor and analyze AI-related SEO metrics across domains.

Instructions

Трекер ИИ - создание проекта Method: POST Path: /ai_tracker Пример запроса https://api.keys.so/ai_tracker

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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "keyso_post_ai_tracker"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesJSON body
tokenNoAPI token override (fallback: KEYSO_TOKEN env)
base_urlNoOverride API base URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the HTTP method, path, and creation intent, but does not mention authentication requirements, required body fields, response contents, or whether creation triggers asynchronous processing.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with purpose. The method, path, and example URL are all useful, but the path is effectively repeated in the example URL, which is a minor redundancy.

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?

A required body object must be sent, yet neither the schema nor the description explains what fields it should contain. There is no output schema, no response information, and no note about authentication or next steps, so an agent cannot reliably construct a valid request.

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%, which sets a baseline of 3. The token and base_url parameters are adequately described in the schema, but the required body parameter is only labeled 'JSON body' with an empty schema, and the description provides no example body or field constraints to compensate.

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?

The description states the action ('создание проекта' / creating a project) and resource (AI tracker). This differentiates it from sibling read/update/delete AI-tracker tools such as keyso_get_ai_tracker and keyso_patch_ai_tracker_id, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 phrase 'создание проекта' implies usage for creating an AI tracker project, and the POST method/path reinforces that. However, there are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-selection instructions, leaving some inference to the agent.

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