Quattr

competitive_keyword_ranking

Read-only

Where do we rank vs competitors on specific keywords? Per-keyword average rank position (1=top, higher=worse) for your site and tracked competitors within a segment. This is RANKING (position 1-N), NOT share percentage — use market_share_overview for share. Use for 'our rankings vs comp3' / 'how do we stack up in mobile India' / 'keyword ranking 3 days ago'. Defaults to the primary 'default' (Overall Market) segment when omitted — name another tracked segment to scope to it.

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": {
      "date_range": "<date_range>"
    },
    "name": "competitive_keyword_ranking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`brand`	No	Restrict to branded ("Yes") or non-branded ("No") demand (ignored at site granularity)
`device`	No	Filter by device, e.g. "MOBILE" or "DESKTOP"
`medium`	No	competitor source medium for the comparison, e.g. "google/organic" (default) or "google/cpc"
`country`	No	Filter by country code, e.g. "ind" or "usa"
`segment`	No	Tracked segment ID; omit to use the primary "default" (Overall Market) segment.
`competitor`	No	A competitor domain or label to compare against head-to-head, e.g. "comp3" or "competitor-c.example"
`date_range`	Yes	Explicit date range, e.g. "2026-05-01 to 2026-05-31". Both endpoints are INCLUSIVE — the END day is covered (a 7-day range = 7 days). Quattr weeks run Sunday–Saturday; for "last week" use the most recent complete Sun–Sat span.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds domain semantics the annotations cannot convey: rank direction, the rank-vs-share distinction, and the default-segment scoping behavior. It does not discuss freshness of the ranking data or return shape, but that is a minor gap given annotation coverage.

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?

Front-loaded with a rhetorical framing question followed by the operative definition, and every remaining clause carries information (rank vs share, alias examples, segment default). Slightly dense and mildly repetitive in restating the rank-vs-share point, but no padding.

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?

For a 7-parameter read-only analytics tool with no output schema, the description supplies purpose, alternative routing, scoping defaults, and metric semantics. It omits what the returned rows look like (per-keyword list vs aggregates) and data freshness, which leaves a small completeness gap but nothing that would cause a mis-invocation.

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%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema, invoking the baseline-3 rule. The description echoes the segment default and date-range inclusivity rules that the schema already states, adding little parameter-level meaning beyond the shared rank semantics.

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 (per-keyword average rank position for your site and tracked competitors) and immediately distinguishes it from market_share_overview by asserting 'This is RANKING (position 1-N), NOT share percentage'. The rank direction is defined (1=top, higher=worse), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns.

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 names the alternative for a competing need ('use market_share_overview for share') and gives three concrete invocation phrasings ('our rankings vs comp3', 'how do we stack up in mobile India', 'keyword ranking 3 days ago'). It also states the scoping behavior when no segment is given, which is a usage rule rather than a schema restatement.

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

All Quattr 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.

Resources

Need Help?