Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semrush MCP

Semrush MCP

by mrkooblu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

semrush_phrase_questions

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve question-based keywords related to a specific term to identify user queries for content creation and SEO optimization.

Instructions

Get question-based keywords related to a term (40 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": {
      "keyword": "<keyword>",
      "database": "<database>"
    },
    "name": "semrush_phrase_questions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordYes
databaseYes
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is read-only and idempotent, so the description adds value by mentioning the cost of 40 API units per line. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 short sentence, which is concise but perhaps too terse. It front-loads the action but lacks structure to guide the agent on usage without additional details.

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 no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for the agent to fully understand the tool's behavior, input constraints, or return format. The cost hint is helpful but not enough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only hints at the 'keyword' parameter via 'related to a term'. It does not explain the 'database' or 'limit' parameters, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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 retrieves 'question-based keywords' related to a term, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'related_keywords' that may return non-question keywords. However, it could be more explicit about the exact resource being queryed.

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 like 'semrush_related_keywords' or 'semrush_keyword_overview'. No context on prerequisites or typical use cases is given.

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