GEO MCP by DigestSEO

Compare competitor AI visibility

compare_competitors

Read-only

Compare brand and competitor AI visibility by analyzing mentions, share of voice, and prompt wins over a chosen time period. Identify performance gaps to refine GEO strategy.

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that this operates on stored mentions over a time window, reinforcing the read-only comparison nature. It does not describe return formatting or behavior beyond that, but the output schema exists and no contradiction is present.

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?

One focused sentence plus a minimal working example; no filler or redundancy. The core comparison scope is front-loaded and every part earns its place.

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 fully documented parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers what is needed to make a correct call. Explicitly naming sibling tools or selection conditions would improve it, but nothing essential is missing.

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 explains all three parameters. The description's example adds useful concrete values, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Compare') and a clear resource: stored brand and competitor mentions, share of voice, and prompt wins over a time window. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like check_visibility or get_visibility_history, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 time-window wording and example imply a comparison use case, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. With many sibling tools present, the agent must infer the boundary from context rather than being told.

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

Deploy Server