semrush-mcp

semrush_keyword_organic_results

Retrieve domains ranking in Google's top 100 organic results for a keyword. Analyze competitor presence and search visibility.

Instructions

Get domains ranking in Google's top 100 for a keyword (10 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_keyword_organic_results"
  }
}

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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits beyond API unit cost. It does not indicate read-only nature, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 very short but front-loads the key action and cost. While concise, it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It does not describe the result format or structure, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra information about parameters, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 purpose: get domains ranking in Google's top 100 for a keyword. It also includes cost information, making it specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like keyword_overview or paid_results.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for optimal use.

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