Skip to main content
Glama
occirank

Haloscan MCP Server

by occirank

get_keywords_bulk

Retrieve comprehensive keyword metrics in bulk, including volume, CPC, and competition, with customizable filters for precise SEO analysis.

Instructions

Obtenir des mots-clés en masse.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lineCountNoMax number of returned results.
order_byNoField used for sorting results. Default sorts by descending volume.
orderNoWhether the results are sorted in ascending or descending order.
volume_minNo
volume_maxNo
cpc_minNo
cpc_maxNo
competition_minNo
competition_maxNo
kgr_minNo
kgr_maxNo
kvi_minNo
kvi_maxNo
kvi_keep_naNo
allintitle_minNo
allintitle_maxNo
word_count_minNo
word_count_maxNo
includeNo
excludeNo
keywordsYes
exact_matchNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.13

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only nature, sorting behavior, pagination). The terse phrase 'Obtenir des mots-clés en masse' adds no behavioral insight beyond the name.

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 concise (one short clause), which is efficient, but at the expense of necessary detail. It is front-loaded but lacks substantive content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (22 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly insufficient. It fails to explain return values, parameter usage, or how this 'bulk' keyword tool differs from siblings despite a large sibling group.

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?

With only 14% schema description coverage, the description does not clarify any of the 22 parameters. The required 'keywords' parameter is not explained, nor are filtering fields like cpc_min, exclude, etc.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description translates the name into French, indicating bulk keyword retrieval, but lacks specificity about what 'bulk' entails (e.g., batch lookup by keyword list) and does not differentiate from siblings like get_keywords_find or get_keywords_match.

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 over alternative keyword tools. Context about prerequisites, filtering logic, or the intended bulk operation is absent.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.