Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Haloscan MCP Server

Haloscan MCP Server

by chouayb123
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_keywords_serp_pageEvolution

Track SERP page evolution for specific keywords over time by analyzing changes between two dates. Gain insights into ranking shifts and URL performance to refine SEO strategies effectively.

Instructions

Obtenir l'évolution des pages SERP des mots-clés.

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": {
      "keyword": "<keyword>",
      "first_date": "<first_date>",
      "second_date": "<second_date>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "get_keywords_serp_pageEvolution"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
first_dateYes
keywordYesSeed keyword
second_dateYes
urlYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It only says 'get evolution', but does not disclose if this is a read-only operation, any side effects, or authentication needs. The behavior is implied but not explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is one sentence and concise. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity, missing key details that would make it more useful without being longer.

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?

Given 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, date semantics, or how the URL is used, leaving the agent underinformed.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'keyword' described). The description adds no meaning to 'first_date', 'second_date', or 'url', leaving their purpose ambiguous. This is a critical gap for a tool with 4 required parameters.

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 it retrieves SERP page evolution for keywords, which is clear. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_keywords_serp_compare or get_keywords_serp_availableDates, missing an opportunity for differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description is minimal and provides no context about prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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

Related Tools