Skip to main content
Glama

wp_seo_track_serp

Monitor search engine rankings for target keywords to analyze SEO performance and track position changes over time.

Instructions

Track search engine result page positions for target keywords

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteNoSite identifier for multi-site setups
keywordsYesKeywords to track positions for
urlNoSpecific URL to track (optional, uses site home if not provided)
searchEngineNoSearch engine to track positions on
locationNoGeographic location for localized results

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the tool logic for wp_seo_track_serp. Currently throws 'not yet implemented'.
    export async function handleTrackSERPPositions(
      client: WordPressClient,
      args: Record<string, unknown>,
    ): Promise<unknown> {
      const logger = LoggerFactory.tool("wp_seo_track_serp");
    
      try {
        // This would need implementation in SEOTools
        throw new Error("SERP tracking not yet implemented");
      } catch (error) {
        logger.error("Failed to track SERP positions", { error, args });
        throw error;
      }
    }
  • The input schema and Tool definition for the wp_seo_track_serp tool, including parameters like keywords, url, searchEngine, etc.
    export const trackSERPPositionsTool: Tool = {
      name: "wp_seo_track_serp",
      description: "Track search engine result page positions for target keywords",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          keywords: {
            type: "array",
            items: { type: "string" },
            description: "Keywords to track positions for",
          },
          url: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Specific URL to track (optional, uses site home if not provided)",
          },
          searchEngine: {
            type: "string",
            enum: ["google", "bing", "yahoo"],
            description: "Search engine to track positions on",
          },
          location: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Geographic location for localized results",
          },
          site: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Site identifier for multi-site setups",
          },
        },
        required: ["keywords"],
      },
    };
  • The getHandlerForTool method registers 'wp_seo_track_serp' by mapping it to handleTrackSERPPositions, used in getTools() for MCP registration.
    private getHandlerForTool(toolName: string): unknown {
      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,
      };
    
      return (
        handlers[toolName] ||
        (() => {
          throw new Error(`Unknown SEO tool: ${toolName}`);
        })
      );
    }
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 states the tool 'tracks' positions, implying a read-only monitoring function, but doesn't clarify if it performs active queries (which might have rate limits), requires specific permissions, returns historical or real-time data, or has any side effects. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 single, efficient sentence: 'Track search engine result page positions for target keywords.' It front-loads the core purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse. Every element (verb, resource, target) earns its place without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, data freshness), usage context, and output expectations. For a monitoring tool in a SEO suite, more guidance on integration and results would be helpful, though the high schema coverage mitigates some gaps.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'keywords' as an array, 'searchEngine' with enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Track search engine result page positions for target keywords.' It specifies the verb ('track'), resource ('search engine result page positions'), and target ('target keywords'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'wp_seo_keyword_research' or 'wp_seo_get_live_data', which might have overlapping SEO functions.

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 prerequisites (e.g., SEO plugin setup), exclusions (e.g., not for real-time data), or compare it to sibling tools like 'wp_seo_keyword_research' or 'wp_seo_get_live_data'. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, with no explicit context.

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