competitor_gapTopics a real competitor ranks for and you do not. Competitors are chosen by how much of their keyword set overlaps with yours, not by raw overlap count: raw count returns social networks that rank for everything. Gap keywords are filtered against your existing vocabulary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Search Console property | |
| competitor | No | Optional. If omitted we pick one by overlap ratio. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully explains the competitor selection algorithm and filtering of gap keywords. It does not mention destructive actions or auth needs, but the behavior is sufficiently clear for a read-like analysis tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no unnecessary words, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns (gap topics). It could mention result format or limitations, but overall it is complete enough for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds value by explaining the 'competitor' parameter's optionality and default behavior (picking by overlap ratio), which goes beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool identifies 'Topics a real competitor ranks for and you do not,' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the unique competitor selection method (overlap ratio vs. raw count).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains how competitors are chosen and why raw count is avoided, providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of SEO analysis: budget, backlinks, competitor gaps, indexing, keyword data, page performance, query insights, and SERP positions. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case noun_noun pattern (e.g., account_status, backlink_profile), making them predictable and easy to interpret.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for SEO analysis, covering key areas without being overwhelming or too sparse.
The tool set covers major SEO analysis domains (indexing, keywords, backlinks, competitors, on-page performance), but lacks a tool for tracking changes over time or providing actionable recommendations (e.g., fix suggestions).