Retrieve Amazon products ranking for a specific keyword, including organic and paid results, to analyze keyword performance and competitor placement.
Get products ranking for a specific keyword (organic and paid)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Search type | both |
| limit | No | Number of results | |
| keyword | Yes | Exact keyword |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses only that both organic and paid rankings are returned; nothing about ranking basis, pagination, rate limits, or whether results are live versus cached.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and scope in order and no filler. It is perhaps under-specified rather than verbose, but it is appropriately sized for what it says.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and only one sentence, the description is minimal but the fully-documented schema covers parameter details. Return shape and ranking semantics remain unexplained for a read tool whose behavior is otherwise opaque.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (keyword, type, limit) are already documented in the schema. The parenthetical '(organic and paid)' loosely echoes the type enum but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb+resource: retrieve products ranked for a given keyword, with organic/paid scope. It is distinguishable from the inverse sibling smartscout_product_keywords, but never names or contrasts any sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as smartscout_keyword_search, smartscout_product_keywords, or smartscout_top_products. The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.