@true402.dev/mcp-server

serp

Instructions

Live Google organic results for one query: the top 10–30 results with position, domain, URL, title and snippet, the SERP features present, and — with target — that domain's position (null = not in the results read). POST { keyword, target? }; unpaid returns 402. Paid from the first call (no free trial). (PAID x402 service — USDC on Base; the MCP server needs a funded wallet to settle.) Price: $0.02 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": {
      "keyword": "<keyword>"
    },
    "name": "serp"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`depth`	No	Results to read, 10-30, default 10
`device`	No
`target`	No	Optional domain (or any URL on it) whose position to report
`keyword`	Yes	The search query
`language`	No	Default "en"
`location`	No	DataForSEO location code, default 2840 (United States)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.3.0Oct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that unpaid returns 402, there is no free trial, payment is USDC on Base requiring a funded wallet, and the fixed $0.02 price. It also notes the 'live' nature and describes what is read. Minor gaps remain (e.g., no rate limit, caching, or explicit read-only/no-side-effects statement), but overall transparency is high.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with return details and payment constraints following. The parenthetical payment sentence is information-dense and slightly cluttered, but overall there is little waste and structure is logical.

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 must convey return values — it does so by listing result fields and SERP features. It also explains the payment model, which is critical for this paid service. Completeness is strong, though some parameter behavior (depth, device, language, location) relies entirely on the schema.

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 description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents the six parameters thoroughly. The description adds a bit of value by clarifying that `target` reports a domain's position and that null means 'not in the results read', but it omits mention of depth/device/language/location and mostly reiterates what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Live Google organic results for one query') and enumerates the returned fields (position, domain, URL, title, snippet, SERP features, target position). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like keyword_volume, ranked_keywords, or backlinks, which serve different SEO data needs.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear usage context: one query at a time, optional target for domain position, POST body shape, and that unpaid calls return 402. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, but the payment model and per-query scope give strong practical guidance.

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