Mencoro

Competitor co-occurrence (head-to-head)

get_competitor_cooccurrence

Read-onlyIdempotent

For the AI answers where the brand and a competitor are BOTH mentioned, compares who is named higher. One row per tracked competitor: how many answers they co-appear in, how often the brand out-ranks / loses to / ties them (by best mention position), the win rate, the average positions, and one representative shared query. Optionally focus a single competitor via competitorId. Tracked competitors only. Dates must fall within the data retention window. Answers questions like "who wins when we both appear", "do I outrank competitor X", "who is mentioned first".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dateTo`	Yes
`engines`	No	allowed values: chatgpt, claude, perplexity, google_ai_overview, google_ai_mode (SERP/Shopping have no AI text mentions)
`dateFrom`	Yes
`countries`	No	ISO-3166 alpha-2 country codes (e.g. "US", "GB", "DE"); a project's configured codes are listed by get_available_filters
`projectId`	Yes
`competitorId`	No	optional competitor UUID to focus on a single rival; competitor UUIDs are listed by get_available_filters (competitors[].id)
`organizationId`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`competitors`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 1, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / engines / description

Previous value: -"allowed values: chatgpt, perplexity, google_ai_overview, google_ai_mode (SERP/Shopping have no AI text mentions)"New value: +"allowed values: chatgpt, claude, perplexity, google_ai_overview, google_ai_mode (SERP/Shopping have no AI text mentions)"

changedInput schema / properties / engines / items / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "chatgpt",
-  "perplexity",
-  "google_ai_overview",
-  "google_ai_mode",
-  "google_serp",
-  "google_shopping"
-]New value: +[
+  "chatgpt",
+  "claude",
+  "perplexity",
+  "google_ai_overview",
+  "google_ai_mode",
+  "google_serp",
+  "google_shopping"
+]

Changed12 schema fields changedSep 17, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / competitorId / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / competitorId / type
```
Removed value: -[
-  "null",
-  "string"
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / competitors / items / properties / avgCompetitorPosition / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / competitors / items / properties / avgCompetitorPosition / type
```
Removed value: -[
-  "number",
-  "null"
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / competitors / items / properties / avgOwnPosition / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / competitors / items / properties / avgOwnPosition / type
```
Removed value: -[
-  "number",
-  "null"
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / competitors / items / properties / exampleAiResponseId / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / competitors / items / properties / exampleAiResponseId / type
```
Removed value: -[
-  "string",
-  "null"
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / competitors / items / properties / exampleQueryText / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / competitors / items / properties / exampleQueryText / type
```
Removed value: -[
-  "string",
-  "null"
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / competitors / items / properties / winRate / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / competitors / items / properties / winRate / type
```
Removed value: -[
-  "integer",
-  "null"
-]
```
First observedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description's job is added context—which it delivers by spelling out the returned row contents (co-appearance counts, win/loss/tie by best position, win rate, average positions, a representative query) and the retention-window and tracked-competitor constraints. It doesn't discuss pagination or result sizing, keeping it from a 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?

Core comparison is front-loaded in the first sentence and the output shape follows immediately. Slightly dense and the trailing example-question list is somewhat redundant with the lead sentence, but nothing is wasted to the point of harm.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't restate return structure, yet it usefully previews the per-competitor row fields. Constraints (tracked-only, retention window) and the optional focus param are covered, leaving only minor gaps around engine/country filtering semantics.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain competitorId (optional single-rival focus, UUID sourced from get_available_filters) and the date retention constraint. However it adds little for engines and countries beyond what the schema already documents, leaving part of the low-coverage surface unexplained.

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 (compares who is named higher) and resource (co-occurring AI answers between brand and competitor), and distinguishes itself from sibling analytics tools by defining the exact head-to-head comparison. An agent can tell this apart from get_share_of_voice_formula or get_mention_mix 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?

Gives clear operational context: 'Tracked competitors only', dates must be inside the retention window, and competitorId optionally narrows to one rival. It also lists triggering questions ('who wins when we both appear'). It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or exclusion condition, so it isn't a full 5.

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

All Mencoro tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.