AgentSEO MCP Server

AgentSEO Domain Intersection

agentseo_domain_intersection

Destructive

Compares two domains to identify shared keyword gaps, advantages, and exclusive keyword opportunities for SEO targeting.

Instructions

Compare two domains to find shared keyword deficits, advantages, and target1-exclusive keyword opportunities. Uses AgentSEO credits; repeating the call can create new charged work.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target1": "<target1>",
      "target2": "<target2>"
    },
    "name": "agentseo_domain_intersection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sync`	No	Request a bounded wait for completion when true. The API can still return a pending job; retain its job ID and poll agentseo_job_status instead of repeating this charged call. False returns a queued job without waiting. Type: Boolean. Default: true.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of intersecting or target1-exclusive keyword records to return. Type: Safe integer. Minimum: 5. Maximum: 250. Default: 25.
`sort_by`	No	Metric used to order returned results; choose one of this tool’s accepted enum values. Type: String. Accepted values: "opportunity", "search_volume", "traffic_gap", "rank_gap", "cpc". Default: "opportunity".	opportunity
`target1`	Yes	Your comparison target as a domain, subdomain or page URL; results are interpreted relative to this first target. Type: String. Minimum: 1 characters. Required.
`target2`	Yes	Second domain, subdomain or page URL used as the comparison target. Type: String. Minimum: 1 characters. Required.
`language`	No	Supported search language code, for example en for English. Type: String. Default: "en".	en
`location`	No	Supported geographic search-market name, for example United States; this is not a coordinate pair. Type: String. Default: "United States".	United States
`intersections`	No	True requests shared keywords; false requests keywords exclusive to target1. Type: Boolean. Default: true.
`location_code`	No	Numeric provider location identifier for the search market; the service validates support alongside the location name. Type: Safe integer. Must be greater than 0. Optional; no client default.
`min_search_volume`	No	Minimum estimated monthly keyword searches to include; zero disables this lower-bound filter. Type: Safe integer. Minimum: 0. Maximum: 10000000. Default: 0.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed10 schema fields changedv0.1.5Nov 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / intersections / description

Added value: +"True requests shared keywords; false requests keywords exclusive to target1. Type: Boolean. Default: true."

addedInput schema / properties / language / description

Added value: +"Supported search language code, for example en for English. Type: String. Default: \"en\"."

addedInput schema / properties / limit / description

Added value: +"Maximum number of intersecting or target1-exclusive keyword records to return. Type: Safe integer. Minimum: 5. Maximum: 250. Default: 25."

addedInput schema / properties / location / description

Added value: +"Supported geographic search-market name, for example United States; this is not a coordinate pair. Type: String. Default: \"United States\"."

addedInput schema / properties / location_code / description

Added value: +"Numeric provider location identifier for the search market; the service validates support alongside the location name. Type: Safe integer. Must be greater than 0. Optional; no client default."

addedInput schema / properties / min_search_volume / description

Added value: +"Minimum estimated monthly keyword searches to include; zero disables this lower-bound filter. Type: Safe integer. Minimum: 0. Maximum: 10000000. Default: 0."

addedInput schema / properties / sort_by / description

Added value: +"Metric used to order returned results; choose one of this tool’s accepted enum values. Type: String. Accepted values: \"opportunity\", \"search_volume\", \"traffic_gap\", \"rank_gap\", \"cpc\". Default: \"opportunity\"."

addedInput schema / properties / sync / description

Added value: +"Request a bounded wait for completion when true. The API can still return a pending job; retain its job ID and poll agentseo_job_status instead of repeating this charged call. False returns a queued job without waiting. Type: Boolean. Default: true."

addedInput schema / properties / target1 / description

Added value: +"Your comparison target as a domain, subdomain or page URL; results are interpreted relative to this first target. Type: String. Minimum: 1 characters. Required."

addedInput schema / properties / target2 / description

Added value: +"Second domain, subdomain or page URL used as the comparison target. Type: String. Minimum: 1 characters. Required."

First observedv0.1.4Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the concrete consequence, namely that it consumes AgentSEO credits and that repeating the call can spawn new charged work. That is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot convey, though it stops short of describing what data comes back.

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 short sentences, purpose first then cost consequence, with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs before invoking a charged, non-idempotent tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a ten-parameter, credited, non-idempotent analysis tool with no output schema, the description omits what the response actually contains (keyword rows with gap/volume metrics, pending-job possibility). The schema covers inputs and annotations cover risk, so it is adequate but thin at the edges where an agent would want to know the return shape.

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 all ten parameters including the sync/polling and intersections toggles are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds only the notion that results are "target1"-relative, which lightly clarifies the intersections flag but nothing about limit, sort_by or filtering behavior.

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?

"Compare two domains to find shared keyword deficits, advantages, and target1-exclusive keyword opportunities" names a specific verb plus resource and lists the output categories, so the agent knows this is domain-level keyword intersection. It does not name distinguishing siblings (agentseo_page_intersection, agentseo_backlinks_page_intersection, agentseo_content_gap), leaving the domain-vs-page distinction to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "compare two domains"; there is no explicit when-to-use versus the page-intersection or content-gap siblings, nor a when-not. The cost warning ("repeating the call can create new charged work") is a real operational hint but is a caution, not selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server