GEO MCP by DigestSEO

Compare competitor AI visibility

compare_competitors

Read-only

Compare brand vs competitor mentions, share of voice, and prompt wins over a chosen time window to identify visibility gaps.

Instructions

Compare stored brand and competitor mentions, share of voice, and prompt wins over a time window. Example: brand_id='acme', competitor_domains=['rival.com'], days=7.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Previous days to compare.
`brand_id`	Yes	Tracked brand ID to compare.
`competitor_domains`	No	Competitor domains; omit to use the brand's configured list.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	Yes
`brand_id`	Yes
`competitors`	Yes
`your_mentions`	Yes
`prompts_you_win`	Yes
`your_share_of_voice_pct`	Yes
`requested_competitor_domains`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.23Sep 23, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / brand_id / description

Previous value: -"Stable identifier of the tracked brand to compare."New value: +"Tracked brand ID to compare."

changedInput schema / properties / competitor_domains / description

Previous value: -"Optional competitor domains to compare; otherwise use the brand's configured competitors."New value: +"Competitor domains; omit to use the brand's configured list."

changedInput schema / properties / days / description

Previous value: -"Number of previous days to include in the comparison."New value: +"Previous days to compare."

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.3.8Sep 19, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / competitors / items / properties / mentions
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / competitors / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "domain",
-  "share_of_voice_pct",
-  "prompts_won_against_you"
-]New value: +[
+  "domain",
+  "share_of_voice_pct",
+  "mentions",
+  "prompts_won_against_you"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / your_mentions
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "brand_id",
-  "days",
-  "your_share_of_voice_pct",
-  "competitors",
-  "prompts_you_win",
-  "requested_competitor_domains"
-]New value: +[
+  "brand_id",
+  "days",
+  "your_share_of_voice_pct",
+  "your_mentions",
+  "competitors",
+  "prompts_you_win",
+  "requested_competitor_domains"
+]

First observedv0.3.2Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds 'stored' to clarify it operates on stored data, and 'time window' for temporal scope. This complements the annotations without contradicting them. The output schema covers return format, so the description doesn't need to explain that.

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?

Two sentences, purpose first, then example. No filler, efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a read-only comparison tool with full schema documentation and an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose and an example. It doesn't mention edge cases like omitting competitor_domains, but that's covered in the schema. Overall adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds an example that demonstrates usage but doesn't provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool compares stored brand and competitor mentions, share of voice, and prompt wins over a time window, with a concrete example. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_visibility by focusing on comparison.

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 description implies usage when comparing brand vs competitors but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like get_visibility_history. The example provides usage context but no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server