Skip to main content
Glama
guifreballester-seranking

SE Ranking SEO Data API MCP Server

by guifreballester-seranking
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Domain Keywords

domainKeywords

Fetch and filter a domain's organic or paid keywords by country, position, search volume, CPC, and difficulty. Use ranking-change filters to identify winning, losing, new, or lost keywords for SEO analysis.

Instructions

Fetch domain keywords (v1/domain/keywords)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
colsNoA comma-separated list of specific response parameter names to include in the output. If omitted, a default set of relevant columns is returned.
pageNoFor paginated results, specifies the page number to retrieve.
typeNoSpecifies whether to retrieve keywords for organic search traffic or paid search (advertising) traffic.organic
limitNoThe maximum number of keywords to return per page.
domainYesThe domain name for which to retrieve keywords.
sourceYesAlpha-2 country code of the regional keyword database.
order_typeNoThe order of sorting.desc
pos_changeNoFilters keywords based on changes in their ranking positions compared to the previous period.
order_fieldNoThe field by which the returned keyword list should be sorted.traffic
filter[cpc][to]NoSpecifies the maximum Cost Per Click (CPC) value for keywords.
filter[intents]NoA comma-separated list of search intent codes to filter keywords.
filter[cpc][from]NoSpecifies the minimum Cost Per Click (CPC) value for keywords.
filter[volume][to]NoSpecifies the maximum monthly search volume for keywords to be included.
filter[traffic][to]NoSpecifies the maximum estimated monthly traffic for keywords.
filter[position][to]NoSpecifies the maximum ranking position for keywords.
filter[volume][from]NoSpecifies the minimum monthly search volume for keywords to be included.
filter[traffic][from]NoSpecifies the minimum estimated monthly traffic for keywords.
filter[difficulty][to]NoSpecifies the maximum keyword difficulty score for keywords to be included.
filter[position][from]NoSpecifies the minimum ranking position for keywords.
filter[competition][to]NoSpecifies the maximum competition score for keywords.
filter[difficulty][from]NoSpecifies the minimum keyword difficulty score (typically 0-100) for keywords to be included.
filter[competition][from]NoSpecifies the minimum competition score (typically 0-1 or 0-100, depending on the metric scale) for keywords.
filter[keyword_count][to]NoSpecifies the maximum number of words in a keyword phrase.
filter[keyword_count][from]NoSpecifies the minimum number of words in a keyword phrase.
filter[characters_count][to]NoSpecifies the maximum character length for keyword phrases.
filter[characters_count][from]NoSpecifies the minimum character length for keyword phrases.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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. 'Fetch' weakly implies a read operation, but the description does not mention pagination behavior, default result sets, sorting, filtering semantics, or what the output contains.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no filler or redundancy—and it efficiently includes the raw endpoint. However, given the tool's complexity, the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than ideal structure.

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?

For a 26-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and a one-line description, the context is severely lacking. An agent gets no orientation about return values, default behavior, sorting, filters, or how this tool relates to the extensive sibling set, making the definition inadequate.

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 input schema already documents all 26 parameters thoroughly. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the schema fully compensates, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 a specific resource with the verb 'Fetch' and the endpoint 'v1/domain/keywords', so an agent understands the basic operation. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like domainAdsByKeyword or keywordsSimilar, which also involve domain or keyword retrieval.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or preferred scenarios are mentioned. The description simply identifies the operation without context on how it fits among the many sibling keyword and domain tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools