Skip to main content
Glama
ravinwebsurgeon

DataForSEO MCP Server

dataforseo_labs_google_relevant_pages

Analyze domain web page performance by retrieving ranking distribution and estimated monthly traffic data from organic and paid searches.

Instructions

This endpoint will provide you with rankings and traffic data for the web pages of the specified domain. You will be able to review each page’s ranking distribution and estimated monthly traffic volume from both organic and paid searches.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYestarget domain
location_nameNofull name of the location required field only in format "Country" (not "City" or "Region") example: 'United Kingdom', 'United States', 'Canada'United States
language_codeNolanguage code required field example: enen
ignore_synonymsNoignore highly similar keywords, if set to true, results will be more accurate
limitNoMaximum number of keywords to return
offsetNooffset in the results array of returned keywords optional field default value: 0 if you specify the 10 value, the first ten keywords in the results array will be omitted and the data will be provided for the successive keywords
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: ["metrics.organic.count",">",50] [["metrics.organic.pos_1","<>",0],"and",["metrics.organic.impressions_etv",">=","10"]] [[["metrics.organic.count",">=",50],"and",["metrics.organic.pos_1","in",[1,5]]], "or", ["metrics.organic.etv",">=","100"]]
order_byNoresults sorting rules optional field you can use the same values as in the filters array to sort the results possible sorting types: asc – results will be sorted in the ascending order desc – results will be sorted in the descending order you should use a comma to specify a sorting type example: ["metrics.paid.etv,asc"] Note: you can set no more than three sorting rules in a single request you should use a comma to separate several sorting rules example: ["metrics.organic.etv,desc","metrics.paid.count,asc"] default rule: ["metrics.organic.count,desc"]
exclude_top_domainsNoindicates whether to exclude world’s largest websites optional field default value: false set to true if you want to get highly-relevant competitors excluding the top websites
item_typesNodisplay results by item type indicates the type of search results included in the response
include_clickstream_dataNoInclude or exclude data from clickstream-based metrics in the result
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 what data is returned (rankings and traffic) but fails to describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness (real-time vs. historical), pagination behavior (implied by limit/offset but not explained), error conditions, or response format. For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences that clearly state the tool's purpose and what data it provides. There's no wasted language or redundancy. However, it could be slightly improved by front-loading the most critical information (e.g., starting with 'Get rankings and traffic data for domain pages') rather than beginning with 'This endpoint will provide you with...'

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 (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the response structure, data formats, or what 'rankings and traffic data' actually means in practice. For a data analysis tool with extensive filtering and sorting capabilities, users need more context about what they'll receive and how to interpret it. The description fails to compensate for the lack of output schema and annotations.

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 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters like 'filters' or 'order_by' relate to the returned rankings and traffic data, nor does it provide examples of typical parameter combinations. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't add meaningful value beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'provide you with rankings and traffic data for the web pages of the specified domain' and specifies what data is included ('ranking distribution and estimated monthly traffic volume from both organic and paid searches'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dataforseo_labs_google_domain_rank_overview' or 'dataforseo_labs_google_ranked_keywords' by focusing on page-level data rather than domain-level or keyword-level metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives for differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over sibling tools like 'dataforseo_labs_google_ranked_keywords' (which might provide keyword-level data) or 'dataforseo_labs_google_domain_rank_overview' (which might provide domain-level summaries). The only implied usage is for analyzing domain page performance, but no explicit context is given.

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