Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gpsem

gpsem

by puples
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Lister les mots-clés

listKeywords
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get tracked keywords for a GPSEM site, sorted by descending search volume. Supports filtering by query and pagination.

Instructions

Lister les mots-clés — Mots-clés suivis, par volume décroissant. — (GET /sites/{siteId}/keywords)

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": {
      "siteId": "<siteId>"
    },
    "name": "listKeywords"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoRecherche
pageNoPage (défaut 1)
limitNoNombre de résultats (≤ 500, défaut 100)
siteIdYesID site encodé (hashid)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: the result set is limited to 'mots-clés suivis' and sorted by decreasing volume, which helps an agent predict output ordering.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the action, scope, and ordering in a single line, then gives the endpoint. There is no redundant or filler text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is a simple read-only list operation with full input schema coverage and informative annotations. The description covers scope and ordering; the only minor gap is the lack of explicit response-shape details, but no output schema exists and the operation is straightforward.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Lister les mots-clés') and the resource (tracked keywords), and adds a specific sorting criterion ('par volume décroissant'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getKeyword, which retrieves a single keyword.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context: this tool lists tracked keywords, ordered by decreasing volume. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the plural 'list' intent is unambiguous relative to the single-keyword sibling.

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