semrush-mcp

semrush_traffic_sources

Get traffic sources data for any domain, breaking down visitors by channel like organic, paid, social, and direct.

Instructions

Get traffic sources data for a domain (requires .Trends API access)

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "semrush_traffic_sources"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain to analyze traffic sources for
`country`	No	Country code (e.g., "us", "uk", "ca", etc.)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.5Jun 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description adds the authentication requirement, which is useful. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or data refresh characteristics.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key requirement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description is adequate but could be more informative. It lacks explanation of what 'traffic sources data' includes and does not specify the return format or any pagination.

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 description does not add extra meaning beyond the parameter names and types. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get traffic sources data for a domain', including the required access. It distinguishes itself from siblings like semrush_traffic_summary through the specific resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from other traffic-related 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 only mentions the prerequisite of '.Trends API access' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to use semrush_traffic_summary or semrush_domain_overview.

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