Skip to main content
Glama

Seo Competitors

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Deep Research

deep_research
Read-onlyIdempotent

ACCOUNT REQUIRED (free — sign in via GitHub at https://pipeworx.io/signup; depth:"thorough" needs a paid plan). If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier. Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources (SEC filings, FRED/BLS economics, FDA, USPTO patents, markets, science, government records, etc.) in ONE call — this is NOT open-web search. Decomposes your question into focused facets, routes each to the right one of 5,743 tools IN PARALLEL, and returns a findings packet: verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + a stable pipeworx:// citation per finding, with explicit gaps[] for facets the data couldn't answer (never invented). Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data ("compare X and Y's regulatory + financial exposure", "research the filings + market picture for ACME"). For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx (one LLM call, not many). For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS / "what's the world saying about X" topics, prefer ask_pipeworx — it routes to live news APIs and the *-news-feeds packs; deep_research returns mostly empty gaps[] when the topic isn't in the structured catalog. Second-hop iteration: depth:"standard" re-angles unanswered gaps (gap recovery); depth:"thorough" additionally chases the best leads from the first pass — so multi-step questions resolve in one call. Every finding carries a hop field and a citation_uri — a resolvable pipeworx:// record URI, present only when the source emits one that resources/read can actually serve, so a citation you get back is always fetchable. "standard" and "thorough" also return contradictions[] flagging findings that disagree. Large records are semantically excerpted to the passages relevant to each facet (not head-truncated), so answers deep in a long filing/series aren't missed. Expect 15-60s (thorough with its follow-up + contradiction pass: up to ~90s).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoHow many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=3 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=6 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan).
questionYesThe research question, in natural language. Broad/multi-part is fine — decomposition is the point.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive; the description adds substantial behavioral context: account/tier requirements, parallel facet routing, gap[] reporting, never-invented evidence, hop fields, citation_uri fetchability, contradictions[] for standard/thorough, semantic excerpting, and 15-90s latency. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is long but every clause earns its place: account requirement, scope, internal routing, return packet, use-case guidance, depth semantics, citation guarantees, excerpting, and latency. It is front-loaded with the most decision-critical fact (ACCOUNT REQUIRED) and progressively adds detail, making it dense yet efficient.

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 complex orchestrator with no output schema, the description fully explains return values (findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation), gap/contradiction fields, timing, and edge cases like non-catalog topics. It covers prerequisites, alternatives, depth modes, and fetchability of citations. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret results correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with param descriptions, so baseline is 3, but the description enriches both parameters far beyond the schema. It explains that 'question' may be broad/multi-part, and details the behavioral differences of depth values (quick/standard/thorough) including gap recovery, lead chaining, and contradiction scanning. No agent could mistake the meaning of either parameter.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources' in one call. It explicitly differentiates from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, making it unmistakable among siblings. The 'NOT open-web search' and 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' statements sharply define its niche.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use deep_research for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, use ask_pipeworx for single lookups or breaking/current-news topics, and use ask_pipeworx if not signed in. It also names depth-specific behavior for standard vs thorough. Alternatives are directly named and contrasted.

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

All Seo Competitors toolsInspect
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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates or easily confused: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check overlaps with scan_competitor_ai_presence, and polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research all target opportunity discovery. While many tools are distinct, the boundaries between these clusters are unclear enough to cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools use a consistent lowercase snake_case convention with descriptive noun/verb patterns (e.g., polymarket_edges, entity_profile, validate_claim, resolve_entity). Minor deviations like seo_domain_ranked_keywords and ask_pipeworx_beta are slightly off-pattern, but the overall style is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is above the threshold where a set starts to feel bloated, especially for a server named "Seo Competitors". The count includes many unrelated subsystems—Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, and generic data routing—making it feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused SEO competitor toolkit.

Completeness2/5

For a server claiming to support SEO competitor analysis, the surface is incomplete: it offers a keyword-ranking tool and AI visibility checks, but lacks standard competitor SEO capabilities like backlink analysis, rank tracking over time, content-gap analysis, or site audits. The broader data/query tooling is extensive, but it doesn't fill the gaps in the advertised domain.

Resources