cfp-seo-agent

competitors

Idempotent

Find up to 10 organic search rivals of a domain with ranking overlap and traffic metrics to see who competes with it.

Instructions

Up to 10 organic search competitors of a domain with ranking overlap and traffic metrics (DataForSEO Labs Competitors Domain). Use it to find who competes with a domain; use keyword_gap to see which keywords a known competitor ranks for that you do not. Returns: JSON with target, total_available, competitors. SANDBOX (development): returns dummy data, no payment.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "competitors"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Domain to analyze, e.g. example.com. A pasted URL is reduced to its domain; IP addresses and ports are rejected.
`language_code`	No	Language code such as en or de. Default: English if available for the country, else its first language. Unsupported country/language pairs are refused before payment.
`location_code`	No	DataForSEO location code. Country level: 2840 = United States (default), 2276 = Germany, 2040 = Austria, 2756 = Switzerland. Google SERP, Maps, News, Images and Local Market Check also accept city/region codes in Germany, Austria and Switzerland (free lookup: GET /api/v1/locations?q=...).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds the return envelope (target, total_available, competitors) and the important sandbox caveat that data is dummy and no payment is charged, which clarifies the billing behavior implied by readOnlyHint=false. It stops short of describing production billing or rate limits, so not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler: capability and scope first, sibling routing second, return shape and sandbox caveat last. Each sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return structure itself, and it flags the sandbox/dummy-data condition that would otherwise cause an agent to misreport results. Combined with full schema coverage and existing annotations, 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%, with domain normalization rules, language defaults and location codes all documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the three parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Up to 10 organic search competitors of a domain') plus the metric content (ranking overlap, traffic metrics), and names its data source. An agent can distinguish it from keyword_gap and domain_overview without opening any schema.

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 states when to use it ('find who competes with a domain') and names the alternative with its selecting condition ('use keyword_gap to see which keywords a known competitor ranks for that you do not'). No inference required.

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