Skip to main content
Glama

Seo Competitors

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Seo Domain Ranked Keywords

seo_domain_ranked_keywords
Read-onlyIdempotent

What keywords does <domain> rank for — returns the keywords a domain ranks for in Google organic, with search volume, current rank, and ranking URL. Competitor SEO intelligence. Example: seo_domain_ranked_keywords({ target: "nike.com", location_code: 2840, limit: 50, _apiKey: "your-base64-key" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax keywords to return (default 20, max 100)
targetYesDomain to analyze (no protocol), e.g. "nike.com"
_apiKeyYesDataForSEO API key = base64("login:password") from your dataforseo.com account
order_byNoOptional sort, e.g. "keyword_data.keyword_info.search_volume,desc"
language_codeNoTwo-letter language code (default "en")
location_codeNoDataForSEO location code (default 2840 = United States)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / examples
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "_apiKey": "your-seo-competitors-api-key",
-    "language_code": "en",
-    "limit": 50,
-    "location_code": 2840,
-    "target": "nike.com"
-  },
-  {
-    "_apiKey": "your-seo-competitors-api-key",
-    "limit": 100,
-    "target": "adidas.com"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "language_code": "en",
+    "limit": 50,
+    "location_code": 2840,
+    "target": "nike.com"
+  },
+  {
+    "limit": 100,
+    "target": "adidas.com"
+  }
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-seo-competitors-api-key",
+    "language_code": "en",
+    "limit": 50,
+    "location_code": 2840,
+    "target": "nike.com"
+  },
+  {
+    "_apiKey": "your-seo-competitors-api-key",
+    "limit": 100,
+    "target": "adidas.com"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the output fields returned and the Google organic scope. It does not cover external behavior like rate limits or freshness, but annotations lower the bar and the description adds meaningful beyond-annotation value.

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 front-loaded with the core question, followed by a clear output summary, a use-case phrase, and a concrete example. Each sentence earns its place, and the example is compact enough to aid invocation without bloating the description.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned data points. With a moderate 6-parameter surface and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly. Minor gaps remain around response shape and result ordering, but they are not critical for correct 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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description's example illustrates how to pass target, location_code, limit, and _apiKey, but it does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides for each 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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('what keywords does <domain> rank for') and specifies the exact output: Google organic keywords with search volume, current rank, and ranking URL. It also situates the tool as competitor SEO intelligence, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like ai_visibility_check or compare_entities.

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?

The phrase 'Competitor SEO intelligence' gives clear implied context for when this tool is useful, but there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions and no alternative tool names are mentioned. The guidance remains at the level of implication rather than explicit routing.

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
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