Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
keyso-mcp

keyso-mcp

by abukreev-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

keyso_post_projects_competitors_compare

Compare project SEO metrics against competitor domains and visualize the results in a diagram to reveal competitive strengths and weaknesses.

Instructions

Сравнение с конкурентами(диаграмма) Method: POST Path: /projects/competitors/compare Пример запроса https://api.keys.so/projects/competitors/compare

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "keyso_post_projects_competitors_compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoJSON 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

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the HTTP method, path, and a diagram hint. It does not disclose the expected request body, authentication needs, side effects, or response behavior.

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 very short and front-loads the essential purpose and endpoint. There is no filler, though the example URL is somewhat redundant with the path and the brevity limits overall usefulness.

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 POST tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an open body schema, an agent needs request-body fields and response details to invoke it correctly. The endpoint and 'diagram' hint are not enough.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for token, base_url, and body, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the body, which is an empty additionalProperties object and thus still ambiguous.

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 gives a vague noun phrase, 'Comparison with competitors (diagram),' plus the endpoint. It identifies the general resource but does not clearly state an actionable verb with scope, and it does not distinguish this tool from several compare/competitor siblings such as keyso_post_tools_compare or keyso_get_report_compare_view_*.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools involving competitors and comparisons, but the description gives no selection criteria or exclusion conditions.

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