Skip to main content
Glama
ascentkorea

Hubble MCP Server

by ascentkorea

get_search_path

Analyze search path patterns for keywords using Hubble's Path Finder API to understand user navigation behavior across Korean and Japanese markets.

Instructions

Make a request to the Path Finder API of Hubble with proper error handling. Args: keyword: str, 검색 키워드(모든 키워드는 소문자로 변환하여 요청) gl: str, 지역 코드 한국 일본(kr, jp) limit: int, 검색 경로 분석 결과 최대 개수(기본값 300) Returns: dict[str, Any] | None: 검색 키워드의 검색 경로 분석 결과

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordYes
glNokr
limitNo

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_search_path' MCP tool. It sends a POST request to the Hubble API's path_finder endpoint to retrieve search path analysis for the given keyword, region (kr/jp), and limit. Includes type hints serving as input schema and @mcp.tool() decorator for registration.
    @mcp.tool()
    @async_retry(exceptions=(Exception), tries=2, delay=0.3)
    async def get_search_path(keyword: str,
                              gl: Literal['kr', 'jp'] = "kr",
                              limit=300) -> dict[str, Any] | None:
        """Make a request to the Path Finder API of Hubble with proper error handling.
            Args:
                keyword: str, 검색 키워드(모든 키워드는 소문자로 변환하여 요청)
                gl: str, 지역 코드 한국 일본(kr, jp)
                limit: int, 검색 경로 분석 결과 최대 개수(기본값 300)
            Returns:
                dict[str, Any] | None: 검색 키워드의 검색 경로 분석 결과
        """
        payload = {"keyword": keyword, "gl": gl, "limit": limit}
        headers = {"X-API-Key": HUBBLE_API_KEY}
        async with httpx.AsyncClient() as client:
            response = await client.post(
                f"{HUBBLE_API_URL}/path_finder",
                headers=headers,
                json=payload,
                timeout=30.0)
            response.raise_for_status()
            return response.text
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'proper error handling' and specifies that keywords are converted to lowercase, adding useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on failures beyond error handling. It's adequate but has gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, parameter details, and return value. It's front-loaded with the main action. Some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating '검색' in Korean), but overall it's efficient and earns its place with necessary information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return type but lacks output format details, error scenarios, and comparison to siblings. It's adequate for basic use but could be more comprehensive for a tool with this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: 'keyword' is a search keyword converted to lowercase, 'gl' is a region code for Korea or Japan, and 'limit' is the maximum number of search path analysis results with a default of 300. This clarifies beyond the basic schema, though it doesn't fully explain all nuances (e.g., format of 'limit' as a string in schema).

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Make a request to the Path Finder API of Hubble' and '검색 키워드의 검색 경로 분석 결과' (search path analysis results for keywords). It specifies the verb ('Make a request') and resource ('Path Finder API'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_keyword_info' or 'get_graph_info', which might have overlapping 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_keyword_info' or explain the specific context for path analysis versus other keyword-related operations. Usage is implied through parameter descriptions but not explicitly stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ascentkorea/hubble_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server