@true402.dev/mcp-server

keyword_ideas

Related and long-tail keyword ideas for a seed term, each with search volume, CPC, competition and search intent. POST { seed }; unpaid returns 402.

Instructions

Related and long-tail keyword ideas for a seed term, each with search volume, CPC, competition and search intent. POST { seed }; unpaid returns 402. (PAID x402 service — USDC on Base; the MCP server needs a funded wallet to settle.) Price: $0.05 USD (fixed).

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": {
      "seed": "<seed>"
    },
    "name": "keyword_ideas"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seed`	Yes	Seed keyword, max 80 chars
`limit`	No	Ideas to return, 1-200, default 50
`language`	No
`location`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.3.0Oct 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the POST { seed } call shape, the 402 failure on unpaid requests, the x402/USDC-on-Base settlement requirement, the need for a funded wallet, and a fixed $0.05 price. It does not say whether the call has any side effects or how errors other than 402 surface, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and output fields before the payment constraints. The parenthetical on payment rails is dense but earns its place because it changes whether the agent can call the tool at all.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description correctly enumerates the returned fields (search volume, CPC, competition, search intent) and covers the payment precondition. The remaining gap is the unexplained language and location inputs, which matter for a multi-locale keyword API.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%: seed and limit are documented in the schema, while language and location have no description anywhere. The prose mentions only the seed term and the return metrics, so it does not compensate for the two undocumented parameters.

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?

A specific verb-plus-resource phrase ('Related and long-tail keyword ideas for a seed term') plus a list of the returned metrics tells the agent exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling keyword_volume or ranked_keywords tools, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the tool generates new ideas, whereas the sibling names suggest volume-checking and ranking existing keywords. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' guidance, and no stated preconditions for the seed other than the schema's 80-char cap.

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