serpmantics

create_eeat_competitors

create_eeat_competitors

Start an E-E-A-T analysis on a guide's top SERP competitors

Starts an asynchronous E-E-A-T analysis on the top competitors of the guide's SERP. Each competitor is fetched and scored individually. Use GET /api/v1/eeat-competitors to poll for results until pending reaches 0.

Token cost: This endpoint charges eeatCompetitorsTokensCostPerCompetitor (see /api/v1/tokens-usage) per competitor analyzed, up to 10 competitors. Example: 10 competitors × 5 tokens = 50 tokens. 6 competitors × 5 tokens = 30 tokens. The number of competitors corresponds to the deduplicated URLs in the guide's top-10 SERP results (available via GET /api/v1/guide).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`guideId`	Yes	ID of the guide whose competitors should be analyzed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses asynchronous execution, individual scoring, token cost per competitor (up to 10), and polling mechanism. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Concise, front-loaded with purpose, then details on cost and polling. Every sentence is informative; no redundancy.

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?

Fully covers async behavior, cost model, and polling instructions. No output schema, but guidance to poll GET endpoint is sufficient for an initiating tool.

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?

Single parameter 'guideId' with schema description 'ID of the guide whose competitors should be analyzed'. Description adds no extra detail beyond schema; baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool starts an E-E-A-T analysis on a guide's top SERP competitors. It specifies the asynchronous nature and individual scoring, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_eeat or create_guides.

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?

Provides clear context on when to use (to analyze competitors) and what to do after (poll GET endpoint). Includes token cost explanation. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions, but context is sufficient.

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

All serpmantics tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct resources (guides, eeat, intent, internal_links, meta, outline, score, credits, tokens). However, some pairs like create_eeat and create_eeat_competitors are very similar and could cause confusion, though their descriptions clarify the difference.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tools consistently use a verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, delete_). Minor inconsistencies include 'get_aissistant_tokens' (typo) and 'get_credit_ledger' (singular vs plural), but overall the pattern is clear.

Tool Count4/5

28 tools is on the higher end but justifiable for a comprehensive SEO analysis platform covering guides, multiple AI features, EEAT, credits, and tokens. A few tools could be merged (e.g., get_credits and get_aissistant_tokens), but the count is still reasonable.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers CRUD for guides and most AI features, plus token/credit management. A notable gap is the lack of a get_score tool after create_score, and some features like updating EEAT analysis are absent. Overall, the core workflows are supported.

Resources

Need Help?