Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Local SEO Data

Local SEO Data

Official
by localseodata
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript
Remote

keyword_opportunities

Read-only

Identify high-opportunity local keywords by comparing difficulty against your current rank. Returns keywords with estimated difficulty, rank, and search volume for targeting.

Instructions

Use when finding the best local keywords to target based on difficulty vs current rank. Returns keywords with estimated_difficulty, your_rank, and search_volume. Costs 4 credits.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "business_name": "<business_name>",
      "location": "<location>"
    },
    "name": "keyword_opportunities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
categoryNoBusiness category to find keywords for (defaults to business name)
locationYesCity and state
business_nameYesBusiness name

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "keywords": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "competitor_rank": {
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "estimated_difficulty": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "keyword": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "search_volume": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "top_competitor": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "your_rank": {
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "keyword",
+          "estimated_difficulty",
+          "your_rank",
+          "search_volume",
+          "top_competitor",
+          "competitor_rank"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "keywords"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context — the credit cost (4 credits) and the returned fields — which helps the agent understand the operational tradeoff.

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?

Three tightly written sentences: usage condition, return shape, and cost. It is well front-loaded with no filler, and every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only lookup tool with a full input schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, result fields, and cost. It could be slightly richer about how ranking is determined or prerequisites, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score 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?

States a specific outcome — finding the best local keywords based on difficulty vs current rank — which distinguishes it from generic sibling tools like keyword_suggestions or search_volume. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the purpose is concrete and agent-actionable.

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?

Begins with an explicit usage condition ('Use when finding...') tied to the ranking-vs-difficulty scenario, giving clear context for selection. It does not mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of the top score.

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