Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Semrush MCP

Semrush MCP

by mrkooblu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

semrush_url_rank_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve historical ranking positions for any URL to analyze SEO performance trends over time.

Instructions

Get historical ranking data for a specific URL

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "semrush_url_rank_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
databaseNous
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds 'historical' but does not disclose further behavioral traits like time range granularity, data source, or response structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could pack more information in the same length.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should hint at return values (e.g., rank over time, dates). It does not. Parameter semantics are missing, and sibling differentiation is absent. Incomplete given the tool's complexity and number of siblings.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must explain parameters. It does not mention the meaning of 'database' (likely country database) or 'limit'. The agent has no added value beyond schema types.

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 specifies the action ('Get') and resource ('historical ranking data for a specific URL'). It distinguishes from current rank tools by using 'historical', but could be more specific about what the data includes (e.g., positions over time).

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 on when to use this tool versus similar siblings like semrush_url_rank, semrush_subdomain_rank_history, or semrush_domain_rank_history. The agent receives no context for selection.

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