keyso-mcp

keyso_post_tools_keywords_by_list

Create a bulk keyword analysis task to check multiple queries at once via Keys.so SEO API. Submit a keyword list and retrieve SEO metrics for each.

Instructions

Массовая проверка запросов - создание задания Method: POST Path: /tools/keywords_by_list

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_tools_keywords_by_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	JSON body
`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

C2.9/5.0

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 only says that a task is created; it does not mention asynchronous execution, returned UID, polling requirements, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a POST endpoint.

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 core purpose. Method and path are somewhat redundant with the tool name, but there is no filler or repetition beyond that. It is concise without being bloated.

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 endpoint with an opaque body and no output schema, the description is too thin for correct invocation. An agent cannot construct a valid request or know what to do with the response; the existence of a sibling status endpoint suggests polling, but that is never stated.

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 coverage is reported as 100%, but the body parameter is an open object whose description is merely 'JSON body'. The tool description adds the useful hint that the body contains a list of queries/keywords, but it does not document required fields or structure, so it stays at the baseline.

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 phrase 'Массовая проверка запросов - создание задания' clearly indicates a batch keyword/query check that creates an asynchronous task. It names a specific verb and resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling POST tools like keyso_post_tools_extended_keywords.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no note that the created task should later be retrieved via keyso_get_tools_keywords_by_list_uid. An agent gets no decision support for choosing this endpoint.

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

Deploy Server