API Hub MCP — 337+ Tools

keyword_density

Analyze keyword density in text to assess keyword frequency and distribution, optionally targeting a specific keyword for SEO optimization.

Instructions

Analyze keyword density in text.

Parameters:
    text — Text content to analyze.
    keyword — Optional specific keyword to check density for.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "keyword_density"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`keyword`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.1Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Analyze keyword density' and lists parameters, omitting details like output format, case sensitivity, or whether it counts occurrences vs. frequency. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 extremely concise: one line for purpose followed by two bullet points for parameters. No wasted words, and the structure leads with the core function.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While an output schema exists (not shown), the description still lacks completeness regarding behavioral details and return value structure. It does not explain what 'density' means (e.g., ratio, percentage) or handle edge cases. Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is adequate but not thorough.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for both parameters: text as 'Text content to analyze' and keyword as 'Optional specific keyword to check density for.' This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though additional detail on format or constraints would improve it.

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 states 'Analyze keyword density in text,' which is a clear purpose with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'word_frequency' or 'keywords', which reduces clarity in context.

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 only states what it does, without mentioning when it is appropriate or when to avoid it.

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

Deploy Server