Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Ready Website Audit

Compare with a competitor's page

compare_with_competitor_page
Read-only

Runs the seo_audit_page checks on the person's page and a competitor's page that targets the same search or task, and lists the checks where they differ. Use it when the person asks why a competitor ranks or shows up in AI answers and they do not. result has mine and theirs (status, scores, problem count, word count, headings, schema types) and differences (check id with each side's status and summary). These are deterministic checks of public pages fetched by Agent Ready Website Audit, with no AI model and no account. They do not cover rankings, keyword volumes, backlinks or how AI answers mention the brand. Returns JSON: summary (one sentence), reportUrl (a shareable report page for the person, kept 30 days; null for tools that keep none) and result (the details below). Errors come back as one plain sentence. Recorded: the checked domain and path (never the query string), the tool, which checks failed and the app name; never an IP address or page text.

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": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "competitorUrl": "<competitorUrl>"
    },
    "name": "compare_with_competitor_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe person's own page: an absolute http or https URL, such as https://example.com/pricing.
competitorUrlYesThe competitor's page for the same search or task: an absolute http or https URL, such as https://example.com/pricing.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, it discloses the execution model (deterministic checks of public pages fetched by Agent Ready Website Audit, no AI model, no account), the reportUrl retention of 30 days, error shape (one plain sentence), and precisely what is recorded versus never stored (no IP, no page text). That is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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 and trigger are front-loaded and the return shape is described in a single structured sentence. The description is dense with facts but on the long side, and the audit-recording/privacy sentence is tangential to calling the tool correctly.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description spells out summary, reportUrl and the result shape (mine/theirs with status, scores, problem count, word count, headings, schema types; differences with check id, status and summary). Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: competitorUrl must target 'the same search or task', which the schema's example (an identical pricing URL) does not convey, and it frames url as 'the person's own page' rather than an arbitrary URL.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Runs the seo_audit_page checks on the person's page and a competitor's page... lists the checks where they differ') and explicitly ties itself to the sibling seo_audit_page, so an agent can distinguish the diff view from the single-page audit without opening either schema.

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?

It gives a concrete trigger ('when the person asks why a competitor ranks or shows up in AI answers and they do not') and bounds the tool with the negative list (no rankings, keyword volumes, backlinks, AI-answer mentions). It never explicitly says to use seo_audit_page for a single page, but that routing is implied by naming the checks it re-runs.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources