semrush-mcp

semrush_keyword_difficulty

Analyze keywords to determine their difficulty ranking in Google's top 10. Provides a difficulty index to prioritize SEO efforts.

Instructions

Get difficulty index for ranking in Google's top 10 (50 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": {
      "keywords": "<keywords>",
      "database": "<database>"
    },
    "name": "semrush_keyword_difficulty"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keywords`	Yes	Array of keywords to analyze (max 100)
`database`	Yes	Database to use (e.g., "us", "uk", "ca", etc.)

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the API unit cost ('50 API units per line'), which is useful, but omits other aspects like rate limiting, error handling, or data freshness.

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 that conveys the core purpose and cost. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, earning it a high score.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema), the description lacks completeness. It does not describe the output format, typical return structure, or any edge cases, leaving 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 does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions the cost, not parameter details.

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 action ('get') and the resource ('difficulty index for ranking in Google's top 10'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools by focusing specifically on keyword difficulty, a unique metric among the listed sibling tools.

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 does not mention when it is appropriate or inappropriate to use, nor does it reference any sibling tools for comparison.

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