Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

ROAS Expert free AI SEO audit

by com.roasexpert.tools
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Compare two or three sites on the audit

compare_sites
Read-onlyIdempotent

Runs audit_site on two or three websites and returns the scores side by side, the five category scores per site, the checks the first site fails or only partly passes while another site passes them, the checks where the first site is ahead, and a report link per site. Put the user's own site first. Each site that is not already cached counts as one audit against the free daily limit. A site that cannot be audited is listed with the reason and the others are still compared.

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": {
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "compare_sites"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYesTwo or three domains, the user's own site first, for example ["mine.com", "rival.com"]

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: each uncached site consumes one audit against the free daily limit, and a failing site is reported with its reason while the remaining sites still compare. Caching semantics are mentioned but not fully spelled out (e.g., whether a cached site is reused from a prior audit).

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 the core action, then the return payload, then the ordering rule, then the quota caveat, then the failure mode. Dense but every clause carries information; the long enumeration of return fields is the only mildly heavy element, though no output schema exists to offload it to.

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?

For a one-parameter comparison tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how partial failures are handled, the quota cost, and the ordering requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it and to set user expectations about cost and errors.

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, and the schema already states 'the user's own site first' with an example. The description earns an extra point by explaining why order matters: the differential output is anchored on the first site (checks it fails that others pass, checks where it is ahead), which the schema does not convey.

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 ('Runs audit_site on two or three websites') and enumerates the returned artifacts: side-by-side scores, five category scores, first-site-only failures, first-site leads, and report links. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling audit_site, which handles a single site.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: invoking audit_site across multiple sites signals this is the comparison variant, and 'Put the user's own site first' gives an ordering rule. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or direct pointer to audit_site for single-site cases, so an agent must infer the routing.

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

All ROAS Expert free AI SEO audit toolsInspect
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