keyword-steroids-gold

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a distinct workflow step: setup, keyword briefs, SERP features, keyword expansion, gap analysis, clustering, crawL audit, GSC, and Semrush. The only real ambiguity is between gold_keyword_gap_scan and gold_semrush_gap, since both are gap-analysis tools even though they use different data sources.
Naming Consistency4/5
All names share the gold_ prefix and use snake_case, which creates a clear family resemblance. However, the final component mixes nouns like brief, features, cluster, audit, insights with verbs like expand and verify, so it is not a strict verb_noun convention.
Tool Count5/5
Ten tools is a well-scoped size for an SEO/keyword server. Each tool maps to a distinct part of the keyword research, content, and audit workflow without feeling redundant or bloated.
Completeness4/5
The set covers setup, keyword expansion, competition scanning, clustering, SERP feature detection, content brief generation, crawl auditing, GSC verification/insights, and competitor gap analysis. Common SEO features like keyword volume/difficulty and rank tracking are missing, but the existing coverage is broad enough to complete most core workflows.
Average 3.7/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is paid/Pro only and fails closed without GSC_OAUTH_JSON. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, or any side effects, so transparency remains incomplete.
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 useful information is compact, but the description contains unexplained and likely unhelpful text like 'Steal: OpenGSC 16 + BigQuery 43' and 'PAID ONLY PRO $29'. These phrases do not help an AI agent call the tool correctly and should be removed or clarified.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent can expect back from the tool. It covers basic purpose, authentication, and optional SQL, but omits return format, behavior when bigquery_sql is absent, and any interaction between days and the SQL path. This is incomplete for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.
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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description mostly restates what the schema says, such as 'days 28' and BigQuery SQL over the GSC export. Since the schema already carries the semantic weight, a baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 core function: retrieving GSC Search Analytics over a 28-day lookback with optional BigQuery SQL against a GSC export. This separates it from siblings like gold_gsc_verify and gold_crawl_audit. However, the cryptic 'Steal: OpenGSC 16 + BigQuery 43' text and 'PAID ONLY PRO $29' add noise that weakens an otherwise clear purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: when GSC Search Analytics insights are needed, optionally with custom SQL over a GSC export. It also provides a real prerequisite by stating it fails closed without GSC_OAUTH_JSON. But it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, which matters given the large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool needs no API key and that it is paywalled, which are material operational constraints. However, it does not state return shape, rate limits, or scraping behavior beyond naming PAA/Related.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a compact single sentence that front-loads the core function and data sources, then states the paywall constraint. No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is minimally adequate: it covers purpose, sources, and access. It is missing expected return format, usage boundaries relative to siblings, and any caveats about paid/Pro enforcement or result volume.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter and default. The description reinforces the Hebrew/il/iw context and the PAA/Related features, but adds no per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 a specific verb and resource: expanding Hebrew keywords via Google Suggest, plus Related Searches and PAA. It is concrete and distinguishable from siblings like gold_keyword_brief or gold_keyword_gap_scan, though it does not name them explicitly.
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 reach for this tool versus any of the nine sibling tools. The only usage-related constraint is 'PAID ONLY PRO $29. No free tier.' That is an access gate, not a when-to-use or alternative recommendation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully adds that no API key is required and that the tool is paid-only, and it explains that it performs live SERP HTML fetching and feature detection. It does not disclose output format, failure modes, or rate limits, so transparency is partial.
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 dense and includes important constraints like no API key and paid-only in a compact space. The 'POWER:' prefix is hype that adds no functional signal, which keeps it from a perfect score.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description never states what the tool actually returns, such as a list of detected features, booleans, or raw HTML. It also does not describe behavior when no features are present or when the keyword is invalid, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent that must interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies that 'keyword' is the search term. The lang and region parameters are left entirely to inference from their names and defaults, so the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific action ('fetch Google SERP HTML for a keyword') and a concrete deliverable ('detect features present') with examples such as PAA box and featured snippet hint. This clearly differentiates it from sibling keyword tools like expansion or gap scanning.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'So you know the fight before writing' gives an implied use case for pre-writing SERP reconnaissance. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over siblings like gold_keyword_brief or gold_keyword_expand, nor does it state any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does disclose meaningful traits: the GSC_OAUTH_JSON prerequisite, paid-only access, and fail-closed behavior when credentials are missing. It does not describe the return shape or side effects, but the failure mode and authentication gate are valuable context beyond the schema.
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 core purpose and prerequisite are front-loaded, but the description includes extraneous provenance and pricing noise such as 'Steal: serpfire/gsc-mcp-server 11 stars' and 'PAID ONLY PRO $29'. These do not help an agent select or invoke the tool correctly.
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?
For a one-parameter verification tool, the description covers the core purpose, the required credential, and the failure mode. However, with no output schema, it leaves the return value unspecified and does not fully clarify what 'verification' returns or whether any side effects occur.
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?
The input schema already documents the single site_url parameter with a description and examples, so the description adds little new parameter-level meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 that the tool checks site_url verification via the GSC API, giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like gold_gsc_insights, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides important usage context such as requiring GSC_OAUTH_JSON and failing closed without it, plus the paid-only restriction. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over related sibling tools or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool is PAID ONLY PRO $29 with no free tier, that it uses a 'bsearch heuristic,' and that it flags results with 0-1 shops as OPEN. This is meaningful behavioral information, though it omits auth, error, and response-structure detail.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by scope, output semantics, and pricing. Every fragment provides useful signal. It is telegraphic rather than fully structured, but the conciseness is effective.
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?
The description captures essential operational constraints and output meaning, and the lack of annotations means it must cover a lot. However, it does not explain prerequisites, return format, authentication, or when to use this versus siblings like gold_semrush_gap, so an agent still faces meaningful ambiguity in real invocation.
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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'region=il' to the gl parameter, 'lang=he' to the lang parameter, and '100 queries' to the queries limit, adding semantics the schema does not fully provide. The 'lang=he' vs schema default 'lang=iw' is a minor ambiguity, but the intent is clear.
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 names a concrete operation, 'Bulk gap scan', and adds operational detail: 100 queries, region=il, lang=he, bsearch heuristic, and the output meaning 'Flags 0-1 shops = OPEN.' This makes the tool's function reasonably clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling gold_semrush_gap.
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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as gold_semrush_gap or the other keyword tools. The description implies bulk Hebrew/Israel usage but never states conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, so an agent is left to infer the right selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers substantial behavioral disclosure: BFS crawl strategy, 50-page cap, 1.2s throttle, the paid-only PRO $29 access constraint, and the caveat that CWV signals are heuristic. It omits output format details but discloses the operational traits an agent needs to set expectations.
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 purpose is front-loaded and the throttle/pricing notes are useful, but the 'Steal: open-seo 12992 onpage + crawlseo 551 crawler+CWV' sentence is internal provenance noise that an agent cannot act on. The remaining text is appropriately dense.
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?
Covers invocation essentials: URL input, enabled checks, crawl cap, throttle, and cost. Gaps: no output format guidance (and no output schema exists to compensate) and no usage routing versus siblings. For a modeately complex 4-param tool this is adequate but not complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description mirrors the schema (50-page cap, broken_links, CWV signals) without adding new semantic meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource ('Crawl audit') with detailed scope: BFS up to 50 pages, on-page checks (title/meta/h1/canonical/robots/viewport/alt), broken links, and CWV heuristic signals. The level of specificity fully distinguishes it from the keyword/GSC-focused sibling tools (gold_keyword_expand, gold_gsc_insights, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives, but the rich scope detail implies the use case: on-page/crawl auditing versus the keyword and GSC siblings. The 'Steal:' line references source tools (open-seo, crawlseo) but does nothing to route an agent's selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, this description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does reasonably well. It warns that SEMRUSH_API_KEY is required, that the feature is paid-only at the PRO $29 tier, and that the tool fails closed without the key. The 'Steal: metehan777/semrush-mcp 16 MIT' line is confusing but references provenance rather than behavior.
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 core purpose and prerequisites are front-loaded and compact. However, the 'Steal: metehan777/semrush-mcp 16 MIT' sentence is cryptic and does not help an agent invoke the tool, and 'PAID ONLY PRO $29' is terse to the point of ambiguity. The description would be stronger without the distracting provenance line.
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?
The description covers prerequisites and fail-closed behavior, which is valuable. It does not, however, explain what the output looks like or how this tool relates to the similarly-named sibling gold_keyword_gap_scan. For a relatively simple two-parameter tool, it is minimally adequate but leaves room for clearer guidance.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both domain and competitor_domains. The description adds only a slight reinforcement of the 'up to 3' limit for competitor_domains, which is already stated. It does not provide additional meaning beyond the 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 performs a Semrush keyword gap analysis between a primary domain and up to 3 competitor domains. This identifies both the resource and the scope of the operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling gold_keyword_gap_scan, so it falls short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context: use this when comparing a domain's keyword gaps against up to 3 competitor domains. It also notes the SEMRUSH_API_KEY prerequisite and the fail-closed behavior if the key is missing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose important non-obvious constraints: paid-only at PRO $29 with no free tier, and Hebrew-language keyword scope. It does not describe the output shape or side effects, but the essential access and input constraints are covered.
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 main purpose is front-loaded in a compact sentence, followed by a clear pricing caveat. Every clause adds relevant information, though the pricing warning could have been expressed slightly more compactly.
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?
The description covers the algorithm, threshold, language, and paid access, which covers most invocation needs for a two-parameter tool. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what the returned clusters look like, nor is there guidance about how this tool relates to sibling keyword tools.
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_description_coverage is 100%, so the baseline applies. The description adds helpful context about Hebrew keywords and Jaccard word-overlap semantics, but does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a concrete operation ('groups Hebrew keywords by word overlap') and identifies the algorithm (Jaccard clustering) with a threshold. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like gold_keyword_expand or gold_keyword_gap_scan.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the phrase 'Jaccard keyword clustering' — an agent can infer it should be used when grouping Hebrew keywords by overlap is needed. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance or mention of what not to use it for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the data source ('free suggest engine'), the cost constraint ('PAID ONLY $29'), and the generated output structure. It does not mention rate limits or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but the framing makes the main behavior clear.
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 two sentences and front-loads the core deliverable before adding cost/source context. The 'POWER:' prefix is promotional noise, but the rest is economical and avoids unnecessary repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with only one required parameter, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does and decide to call it. Minor gaps include the lack of detail on how lang/region influence output and no mention of return format, but these are secondary for selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It clarifies the meaning of 'seed' ('seed keyword') but gives no semantics for 'lang' or 'region', such as accepted formats, possible values, or how they affect the suggest engine.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a concrete deliverable ('one-page content brief') built from a 'seed keyword' and lists the exact sections included (H1/title/meta formulas, H2 outline, word-count band, internal-link anchors). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like gold_keyword_expand, which is about expanding keywords rather than producing a brief.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
When to use it is implied: call it when you need a content brief from a seed keyword. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer siblings such as gold_keyword_expand or gold_cluster, so the agent must infer routing from the output description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the tool is a check (non-mutating), what it reveals (license tier, API key presence, next step), and a critical security behavior: 'names only, never values'. This is highly transparent for a zero-parameter operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation name and urgency ('run this FIRST'). Every element is purposeful, with no filler. The structure immediately conveys priority and content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains inputs (none needed), outputs (license tier, API key status, next step), and usage context (first step before keyword operations). Nothing important is missing.
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?
With zero parameters, the schema needs no elaboration. The description adds no parameter-specific details because none exist, but it does clarify the tool's output context, which is more than the baseline for a param-less tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description names a specific verb-resource pair ('SETUP CHECK') and a precise purpose: shows license tier, API key status, and next step. It clearly separates itself from the keyword-focused sibling tools by establishing itself as the diagnostic first-run check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly instructs the agent to 'run this FIRST', which is a direct usage guideline. It also implies it should precede any keyword or crawl operations, and the phrase 'exact next step' signals the tool's role in guiding subsequent actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![keyword-gold MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/diklaaltman91-ux/keyword-gold/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/diklaaltman91-ux/keyword-gold)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![keyword-gold MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/diklaaltman91-ux/keyword-gold/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/diklaaltman91-ux/keyword-gold)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/diklaaltman91-ux/keyword-gold'

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