semrush_keyword_overviewAnalyze a keyword across all databases to get search volume, CPC, competition, and results. Use it to validate keyword potential before SEO planning.
Summary metrics for a keyword across all databases: search volume, CPC, competition and results. Use for quick keyword validation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phrase | Yes | Keyword/phrase to analyze, e.g. "seo tools" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly implies a non-mutating read of summary metrics, but it omits any auth requirements, cost in API units, rate limits, or acknowledging the all-databases scope's implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with the resource and scope front-loaded and no filler; every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned metrics and the cross-database scope, which is enough for a simple single-parameter read tool. It would be more complete if it referenced the single-database alternative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'phrase' parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb/resource ('Summary metrics for a keyword') and enumerates the returned fields (search volume, CPC, competition, results). The phrase 'across all databases' implicitly differentiates it from the sibling semrush_keyword_overview_single_db, though that sibling is not named explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Use for quick keyword validation' gives an implied usage context, but it does not say when to prefer this over the many keyword siblings (single_db, keyword_difficulty, related_keywords, serp). No exclusions or explicit alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.