semrush-mcp

semrush_related_keywords

Find related keywords for any search term to expand keyword research and identify content opportunities. Use with a specific database to get targeted suggestions.

Instructions

Get related keywords for a specific keyword

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>"
    },
    "name": "semrush_related_keywords"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get related keywords' without explaining what type of relatedness (e.g., semantic or competitive), whether results include metrics, or any constraints like rate limits 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is overly brief and could include more detail without sacrificing conciseness, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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 absence of an output schema and the complexity of the sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what kind of data is returned (e.g., keywords, metrics) or how it differs from similar tools like 'semrush_broad_match_keywords'.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as default values or format specifications.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'related keywords' for a specific keyword. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'broad_match_keywords' or 'keyword_overview', which could also provide related terms or overviews.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit context indicators, exclusions, or usage scenarios, leaving the agent to infer solely from the name and description.

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