Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semrush MCP

Semrush MCP

by mrkooblu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

semrush_keyword_difficulty

Read-onlyIdempotent

Measure how hard it is to rank a keyword in Google's top 10 organic results by retrieving its difficulty index.

Instructions

Get difficulty index for ranking in Google's top 10 (50 API units per line)

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": {
      "keywords": "<keywords>"
    },
    "name": "semrush_keyword_difficulty"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordsYes
databaseNous

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by disclosing the API unit cost ('50 API units per line'), which is a relevant operational detail not present in annotations.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key cost detail, with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient.

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 lack of an output schema, the description should hint at what the tool returns (e.g., a numerical difficulty score, range, etc.). It does not, leaving the agent without critical context about the result format. Additionally, it does not clarify whether 'per line' means per keyword or per API call.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the meaning or usage of the 'keywords' or 'database' parameters. For example, it does not specify that 'database' is a geographic code or how to format keywords. This forces the agent to rely solely on schema constraints.

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 clearly states the action 'Get' and the resource 'difficulty index for ranking in Google's top 10', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like semrush_keyword_overview by focusing solely on the difficulty metric.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as semrush_keyword_overview or semrush_batch_keyword_overview. The description does not include any context for appropriate or inappropriate usage scenarios.

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