Skip to main content
Glama
ravinwebsurgeon

DataForSEO MCP Server

ai_optimization_llm_mentions_top_domains

Analyze which domains are most frequently mentioned alongside LLM discussions to identify content opportunities and competitive insights for SEO optimization.

Instructions

This endpoint provides aggregated LLM mentions metrics grouped by the most frequently mentioned domains for the specified target

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesArray of target objects to search for LLM mentions. Each object must contain either 'domain' or 'keyword'. Maximum number of targets: 1000
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
links_scopeNospecifies which links will be used to extract domains and aggregation
initial_dataset_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
items_list_limitNomaximum number of results in the items array, min value is 1, max value is 10
internal_list_limitNomaximum number of elements within internal arrays, min value is 1, max value is 10
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions aggregation and grouping by domains but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what the output format looks like (especially problematic since there's no output schema). For a complex tool with 8 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that efficiently states the core function. It's appropriately front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning it's for analyzing LLM mentions data, but given the tool name includes 'ai_optimization_llm_mentions', this is reasonably concise.

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 (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, multiple sibling alternatives), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'LLM mentions' are in this context, what metrics are aggregated, how results are sorted/limited, or provide any examples of use cases. For a tool that appears to perform data analysis with multiple filtering options, more context is needed to guide proper usage.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how 'target' objects relate to the aggregation, what 'top domains' means in practice, or provide examples of typical parameter combinations. With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 LLM mentions metrics grouped by the most frequently mentioned domains', which gives a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions the verb 'provides' and resource 'metrics', but doesn't clearly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ai_optimization_llm_mentions_aggregated_metrics' or 'ai_optimization_llm_mentions_top_pages'. The purpose is vague about what 'top domains' means operationally.

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 versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools in the 'ai_optimization_llm_mentions' family (e.g., 'ai_optimization_llm_mentions_aggregated_metrics', 'ai_optimization_llm_mentions_search', 'ai_optimization_llm_mentions_top_pages'), the description offers no context about when this domain-focused aggregation is appropriate versus other mention analysis tools.

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