Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ReviewWebsite MCP Server

ReviewWebsite MCP Server

by mrgoonie
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

seo_traffic

Retrieve traffic data for a domain or URL. Choose between subdomains or exact mode, and optionally filter by country.

Instructions

Check traffic for a domain or URL using ReviewWeb.site API.

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": {
      "domainOrUrl": "<domainOrUrl>"
    },
    "name": "seo_traffic"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainOrUrlYesThe domain or URL to check traffic for
modeNoMode to use (default: subdomains)
countryNoCountry code (default: None)
api_keyNoYour ReviewWebsite API key

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states it uses ReviewWeb.site API but does not disclose any behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements (though api_key param exists), or what the output represents. Lacks transparency for a non-trivial tool.

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 description is a single sentence, efficient but perhaps too brief for a tool with four parameters. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words, but could benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.

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 four parameters, no output schema, and complex sibling context, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, required authentication (api_key), or how mode/country affect results. The tool feels underspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal context (e.g., 'Check traffic') but does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema offers. 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 it checks traffic for a domain or URL. The verb 'Check' and resource 'traffic' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like seo_backlinks or seo_keyword_difficulty, which focus on different metrics.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as having an API key, or scenarios where this tool is preferable over other SEO 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