Skip to main content
Glama

Seo Competitors

by io.github.pipeworx-io

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)

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations declaring readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds value by specifying the exact return fields (search volume, current rank, ranking URL). It also provides a usage example, offering practical insight beyond the structured 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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a clear question-answer format, includes a labeled example, and every sentence contributes meaning. No redundant information.

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?

The tool is a read-only list query with all parameters documented in schema and annotations covering safety. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states the return fields, making the tool's behavior fully understandable. The example further enhances completeness.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description's example illustrates parameter usage but adds little semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional parameter explanations are provided.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('keywords a domain ranks for in Google organic'). It includes output details (search volume, current rank, ranking URL) and a concrete example, making it distinct from sibling tools like entity_profile or scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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?

The description provides clear usage context ('Competitor SEO intelligence') and an example call. It implicitly signals when to use the tool (for analyzing domain keyword rankings) but does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions. Thus it is clear on context but lacks explicit comparisons.

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