semrush-mcp

semrush_broad_match_keywords

Retrieve broad match and alternate search queries for a keyword to discover related terms and expand keyword research.

Instructions

Get broad matches and alternate search queries for a keyword (20 API units per line)

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": {
      "keyword": "<keyword>",
      "database": "<database>"
    },
    "name": "semrush_broad_match_keywords"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`keyword`	Yes	Keyword to analyze
`database`	Yes	Database to use (e.g., "us", "uk", "ca", etc.)
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Jun 3, 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 carries full burden. It only discloses cost per line, but fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It includes essential information (action, resource, cost) and is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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?

The description is minimal given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations). It does not explain return format, pagination, or any behavioral details beyond cost, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the tool returns 'broad matches and alternate search queries', but does not elaborate on parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool gets 'broad matches and alternate search queries for a keyword', providing a specific verb ('get') and resource. The purpose is distinct from sibling tools like related keywords or phrase questions.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions cost (20 API units per line) but lacks explicit context about when to prefer broad match keywords over other tools.

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