Skip to main content
Glama
AutomateLab-tech

automatelab-ai-seo

Official

diff_pages

Compare two URLs to identify which page is more AI-citation worthy. Get a structured breakdown of dimensions and prioritized fixes to close the competitive gap.

Instructions

Compare two URLs for AI citation-worthiness and return a structured breakdown of which page is more likely to be cited and why. Typical use: your page (url_a) vs a competitor's page (url_b).

Read-only. Runs audit_page on both URLs in parallel (2 HTTP fetches per URL), then diffs dimension_scores and findings. No new fetch logic beyond what audit_page already does.

Deterministic, rule-based; no LLM calls. Same two URLs return the same comparison on repeated runs.

When to use: competitive gap analysis - understand exactly which dimensions (schema, structure, robots, entity density, freshness, technical, authority, sitemap) put a competitor ahead, and get prioritized fix_recommendations_for_a to close the gap. For a single-URL audit, use audit_page. For overall scoring of one page, use score_citation_worthiness.

Capped at 2 URLs per call. Heuristic verdict - does not claim to know what AI assistants actually cite; verdict matches audit_page's existing rubric.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
url_aYesFirst URL to compare - typically your own page. Must be a fully-qualified http(s) URL that returns HTTP 200 (redirects are followed).
url_bYesSecond URL to compare - typically a competitor's page. Must be a fully-qualified http(s) URL that returns HTTP 200 (redirects are followed).
queryNoOptional target search query both pages are competing for (e.g. 'how to connect Zapier to Notion'). When provided, it is surfaced in fix_recommendations_for_a as context. Does not alter the scoring algorithm - scoring is based on audit_page's existing rubric.
respect_robotsNoIf true (default), respect robots.txt before fetching each URL. Set false only when auditing your own sites where you have intentionally blocked crawlers.
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature, parallel execution, deterministic rule-based approach, no LLM calls, cap of 2 URLs, and heuristic verdict. This is comprehensive.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections, front-loaded purpose, and concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, usage, alternatives, and parameter context completely. No gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context: query parameter is surfaced in recommendations, respect_robots should be false only on own sites. These add value beyond schema.

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: compare two URLs for AI citation-worthiness and return a structured breakdown. It distinguishes from siblings like audit_page (single URL audit) and score_citation_worthiness (single page scoring).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly specifies when to use ('competitive gap analysis') and when not ('For a single-URL audit, use audit_page. For overall scoring of one page, use score_citation_worthiness'). Provides clear alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AutomateLab-tech/ai-seo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server