Skip to main content
Glama
chouayb123

Haloscan MCP Server

by chouayb123

get_keywords_similar

Identify and analyze similar keywords based on a seed keyword. Filter results by volume, CPC, competition, and more to refine SEO and marketing strategies.

Instructions

Obtenir la correspondance des mots-clés.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allintitle_maxNo
allintitle_minNo
competition_maxNo
competition_minNo
cpc_maxNo
cpc_minNo
excludeNo
includeNo
keywordYesSeed keyword
kgr_maxNo
kgr_minNo
kvi_keep_naNo
kvi_maxNo
kvi_minNo
lineCountNoMax number of returned results.
orderNoWhether the results are sorted in ascending or descending order.
order_byNoField used for sorting results. Default sorts by descending volume.
p1_score_maxNo
p1_score_minNo
score_maxNo
score_minNo
similarity_maxNo
similarity_minNo
volume_maxNo
volume_minNo
word_count_maxNo
word_count_minNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It provides none—no mention of read-only nature, side effects, limitations, or output characteristics.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short but not concisely helpful—it is under-specified. A single vague phrase does not earn its place, as it fails to convey essential information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the high parameter count (27), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is utterly incomplete. It provides no context about return values, filtering logic, or how the tool operates.

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 15%, yet the description adds no value by explaining any of the 27 parameters or their interplay. The single phrase does not help interpret the many filter options.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Obtenir la correspondance des mots-clés' (Get the correspondence of keywords) is vague and does not clarify what 'correspondence' means. It fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like get_keywords_related or get_keywords_match, which likely have overlapping functionality.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it describe prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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