keyso-mcp

keyso_post_serp_id_update

Update an existing SERP project's data by ID. Refresh search engine results and rankings for the project using the Keys.so API.

Instructions

Онлайн парсер выдачи - обновление данных проекта Method: POST Path: /serp//update Обновить данные по созданному проекту Пример запроса https://api.keys.so/serp/<id>/update

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_post_serp_id_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	in: path (auto-detected)
`token`	No	API token override (fallback: KEYSO_TOKEN env)
`base_url`	No	Override API base URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that it updates project data and repeats the HTTP method/path, without explaining side effects, whether existing data is replaced, authentication requirements, or any asynchronous 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 short and the example URL is helpful. However, the first sentence and the later 'Обновить данные по созданному проекту' are largely redundant, so not every element earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, this mutating endpoint should explain what data can be updated, what the response looks like, and any prerequisites. The description only says 'update project data' and gives a path, leaving important operational context missing.

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 is 3 and the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a concrete example URL embedding the id, but does not provide any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already gives.

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 clearly identifies the action as updating data for an existing SERP project, with the HTTP method and path spelled out. It distinguishes itself from the many SERP get/delete siblings by naming the update operation, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 'обновить данные по созданному проекту' implies this tool is used after a project has been created, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over related SERP endpoints or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server