Skip to main content
Glama
ravinwebsurgeon

DataForSEO MCP Server

ai_optimization_llm_mentions_cross_aggregated_metrics

Aggregate and analyze LLM mentions across domains or keywords to track AI optimization metrics and performance insights.

Instructions

This endpoint provides aggregated metrics grouped by custom keys for mentions of the keywords or domains specified in the target array of the request

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetsYesarray of objects containing target entities with aggregation keys. you can specify up to 10, but not less than 2
location_nameNofull name of the location, example: 'United Kingdom', 'United States'
language_codeNoSearch engine language code (e.g., 'en')
platformNoPlatform to search for LLM mentions
filtersNoyou can add several filters at once (8 filters maximum) you should set a logical operator and, or between the conditions the following operators are supported: regex, not_regex, <, <=, >, >=, =, <>, in, not_in, match, not_match, ilike, not_ilike, like, not_like you can use the % operator with like and not_like, as well as ilike and not_ilike to match any string of zero or more characters merge operator must be a string and connect two other arrays, availible values: or, and. example: ["ai_search_volume",">","1000"] The full list of possible filters is available in 'ai_optimization_llm_mentions_filters' tool
internal_list_limitNoInternal parameter to limit the number of items processed. Not exposed to end-users.
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions aggregation and grouping but fails to detail critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, error handling, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core function. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point, though it could be slightly more structured by separating key concepts like aggregation and targeting.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, usage examples, and how it differs from siblings, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by hinting at 'custom keys' and 'target array', but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 states the tool provides aggregated metrics for mentions of keywords or domains, which gives a general purpose. However, it's vague about what 'aggregated metrics' specifically entail (e.g., counts, trends, volumes) and doesn't clearly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'ai_optimization_llm_mentions_aggregated_metrics' or 'ai_optimization_llm_mentions_search', leaving ambiguity in its exact function.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions grouping by custom keys and using a target array, but it doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or compare it to sibling tools, offering minimal context for selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ravinwebsurgeon/seo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server