Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semrush MCP

Semrush MCP

by mrkooblu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

semrush_audience_insights

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare audience overlap and similarity between multiple domains to reveal shared audience segments and competitive insights.

Instructions

Get audience overlap and similarity data between domains (requires .Trends)

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": {
      "targets": "<targets>",
      "selected_targets": "<selected_targets>"
    },
    "name": "semrush_audience_insights"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetsYes
selected_targetsYes
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the .Trends requirement, which is useful behavioral context, but otherwise lacks details on return format, pagination, or limits.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words, but it sacrifices necessary detail about parameters and usage. It is appropriately sized for the purpose clarity part but incomplete for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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 complexity of three parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description fails to provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It does not explain required parameter structure or expected results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (targets, selected_targets, limit). The agent is left to infer meaning from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'audience overlap and similarity data between domains', making the tool's purpose clear and distinct from siblings like semrush_audience_interests.

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 only mentions a prerequisite ('.Trends') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like semrush_audience_interests or other domain analytics tools. No explicit when/when-not or usage context.

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