SEOmatic

serp_competitors

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect the live search landscape: which SERP features (AI Overview, snippet, PAA, local pack, video) appear for a keyword, plus domain-level top rankings, visibility distribution, and competitor domains. Use for who ranks and why; for keyword demand use keyword_research. Already scoped to the connected workspace and its site; call directly, no domain or site parameter is needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	max results where applicable.
`action`	Yes	Which operation to run. features (which SERP features appear for a keyword); domain_rankings (top keywords a domain ranks for); domain_overview (organic visibility distribution); domain_competitors (domains ranking for similar keywords).
`domain`	No	domain_rankings/domain_overview/domain_competitors: the domain. Omit for the connected workspace's own site (the server fills it in); pass only for a competitor.
`keywords`	No	features only: the keyword(s) to inspect.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the tool inspects the live landscape, is scoped to the connected workspace/site, and can be called directly without a domain parameter. It does not discuss rate limits or pagination, but the output schema and annotations lower that burden.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: main capability, sibling differentiation, and scoping instruction are each front-loaded and purposeful. The structure is dense but immediately scannable for an agent.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and annotations, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it is scoped, and which sibling to choose instead. An agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, and each parameter is already documented with conditional usage (e.g., domain omitted for own site, keywords for features only). The description provides a high-level summary but does not materially add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and clearly defines the resource: live SERP features, domain rankings, visibility distribution, and competitor domains. It also differentiates from sibling keyword_research by stating the use case ('who ranks and why'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use for who ranks and why; for keyword demand use keyword_research,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also tells the agent that no domain/site parameter is needed because the tool is already scoped, removing a likely misuse.

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

All SEOmatic tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct SEO domain: backlinks, datasets, keywords, local presence, SERP features, and on-page analysis. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference when to use one tool over another (e.g., serp_competitors vs. keyword_research), eliminating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case noun phrase pattern: backlink_profile, dataset_library, keyword_research, local_presence, serp_competitors, site_pages. The convention is uniform and predictable, making the set easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped count for an SEO analysis server. Each tool covers a major SEO capability without redundancy, and the number is well within the ideal range for a focused toolkit.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the core SEO research landscape: keyword demand, SERP competition, backlinks, local presence, on-page diagnostics, and dataset templates. The one notable gap is the mention of gsc_performance in site_pages without a corresponding tool, leaving search-performance questions as a dead end.

Resources

Need Help?