Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semrush MCP

Semrush MCP

by mrkooblu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

semrush_site_audit_issues

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve metadata about issues found in a site audit for a specified project to identify SEO problems and prioritize fixes.

Instructions

Get issue metadata for site audit

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "semrush_site_audit_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., scope of metadata, pagination, or required prior state), so it meets the baseline given annotation coverage.

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 extremely short (5 words), but such brevity comes at the cost of completeness; it is not optimally concise because it omits necessary information for effective use.

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 simplicity (single param, no output schema) and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse; it does not explain what 'issue metadata' entails, how it relates to other site audit tools, or any operational context.

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%, yet the description provides no explanation of the single parameter 'project_id' (e.g., what it represents or how to obtain it), failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the action ('Get') and resource ('issue metadata for site audit'), but does not differentiate from many sibling site audit tools such as semrush_site_audit_page_detail or semrush_site_audit_snapshots, so specificity is moderate.

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 usage context is provided; the description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or limitations.

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