Classifies keywords as informational, commercial, transactional, or navigational using modifier rules, so you can group search queries by intent for SEO planning.
Classify keywords as informational, commercial, transactional or navigational using modifier rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | Yes | Keywords, one per line or comma separated |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at method ('using modifier rules') but says nothing about the return format, whether one label is returned per keyword, how ambiguous keywords are handled, or any limits. For a classifier with zero structured coverage of behavior, this is a notable gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the core action and output categories front-loaded and no filler. It could still be slightly richer without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required param) and there is no output schema, so the description should at least sketch the response shape — it does not. No annotations exist to cover safety or behavior either, leaving the return contract undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's format ('one per line or comma separated') is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (classify) and resource (keywords) and enumerates the four output labels, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like cluster_keywords, but the verb+resource is specific enough to be unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when another sibling (e.g., cluster_keywords) would be preferred instead. Usage is only implied by the SEO context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.