Skip to main content
Glama

wp_seo_keyword_research

Research SEO keywords and get suggestions based on topic analysis, competition data, and user intent to improve WordPress content visibility.

Instructions

Research keywords and get suggestions based on topic and competition analysis

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteNoSite identifier for multi-site setups
seedKeywordYesSeed keyword or topic to research
includeVariationsNoInclude keyword variations and long-tail keywords
includeQuestionsNoInclude question-based keywords
maxResultsNoMaximum number of keyword suggestions

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the logic for the 'wp_seo_keyword_research' tool. Currently implemented as a stub that throws an error indicating it's not yet implemented.
    export async function handleKeywordResearch(client: WordPressClient, args: Record<string, unknown>): Promise<unknown> {
      const logger = LoggerFactory.tool("wp_seo_keyword_research");
    
      try {
        // This would need implementation in SEOTools
        throw new Error("Keyword research not yet implemented");
      } catch (error) {
        logger.error("Failed to perform keyword research", { error, args });
        throw error;
      }
    }
  • The input schema and definition for the 'wp_seo_keyword_research' tool, specifying parameters like seedKeyword, includeVariations, etc.
    export const keywordResearchTool: Tool = {
      name: "wp_seo_keyword_research",
      description: "Research keywords and get suggestions based on topic and competition analysis",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          seedKeyword: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Seed keyword or topic to research",
          },
          includeVariations: {
            type: "boolean",
            description: "Include keyword variations and long-tail keywords",
          },
          includeQuestions: {
            type: "boolean",
            description: "Include question-based keywords",
          },
          maxResults: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Maximum number of keyword suggestions",
          },
          site: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Site identifier for multi-site setups",
          },
        },
        required: ["seedKeyword"],
      },
    };
  • The registration mapping that associates the tool name 'wp_seo_keyword_research' with its handler function 'handleKeywordResearch' in the getHandlerForTool method, used by getTools() for MCP registration.
    const handlers: Record<string, unknown> = {
      wp_seo_analyze_content: handleAnalyzeContent,
      wp_seo_generate_metadata: handleGenerateMetadata,
      wp_seo_bulk_update_metadata: handleBulkUpdateMetadata,
      wp_seo_generate_schema: handleGenerateSchema,
      wp_seo_validate_schema: handleValidateSchema,
      wp_seo_suggest_internal_links: handleSuggestInternalLinks,
      wp_seo_site_audit: handlePerformSiteAudit,
      wp_seo_track_serp: handleTrackSERPPositions,
      wp_seo_keyword_research: handleKeywordResearch,
      wp_seo_test_integration: handleTestSEOIntegration,
      wp_seo_get_live_data: handleGetLiveSEOData,
    };
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'competition analysis' but doesn't explain what that entails, such as data sources, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only or computationally intensive operation. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency about how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core function ('Research keywords'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the action from the analysis aspects, but it remains highly concise.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the output format (e.g., what keyword suggestions look like), behavioral traits like data sources or limitations, or how it integrates with sibling SEO tools. For a research tool with multiple parameters, this leaves too many contextual gaps for effective agent use.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify how 'seedKeyword' relates to 'topic' or what 'competition analysis' involves parameter-wise). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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: 'Research keywords and get suggestions based on topic and competition analysis.' It specifies the verb ('research') and resource ('keywords'), and distinguishes itself from sibling SEO tools like 'wp_seo_analyze_content' or 'wp_seo_generate_metadata' by focusing on keyword research. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'wp_search_site' (which might involve search functionality), keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 when to choose it over other SEO tools like 'wp_seo_analyze_content' or general search tools like 'wp_search_site', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual direction leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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/docdyhr/mcp-wordpress'

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