Website Auditor MCP

Compare against competitors

compare_competitors

Read-only

Compare your website's AI visibility against named competitors. Get each competitor's score and where they appear that your site does not, with transparent quota handling.

Instructions

Compare a website's AI visibility head-to-head against named competitors. Use this when someone asks "how do I stack up against X and Y," "who does ChatGPT recommend instead of me," or wants a competitive AI-visibility view. Returns each competitor's score and where they appear that the site does not. Each competitor not already cached costs one audit against your daily quota; if the quota can't cover every competitor, it ranks the ones it could audit and returns a quota summary plus a skipped list naming the rest — it never drops competitors silently or invents scores. If the quota is already exhausted it returns an over-quota error with the reset time. Requires a Website Auditor subscription ($10/month; eligible new customers get a 7-day free trial — payment method required, no charge until the trial ends) — if the user doesn't have one, call get_sample_audit first to show them the exact output format, free and with no API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	The website domain, e.g. "example.com".
`competitors`	Yes	Competitor domains to compare against.
`business_location`	No	Optional. The market to compare within, e.g. "Chiang Mai, Thailand". Applied to the site AND every competitor, because a comparison asks about one market — scoring one locally and the others globally would rank answers to two different questions. Leave it out and each audit detects its own location, which is right for national or global businesses and wrong for local ones.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gaps`	Yes	Engines where a competitor appears in AI answers and this site does not.
`quota`	Yes
`market`	Yes	The market every audit in this comparison was scored in, or null when each domain's own location was detected.
`ranking`	Yes
`skipped`	Yes
`summary`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.23Sep 9, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / business_location

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. The market to compare within, e.g. \"Chiang Mai, Thailand\". Applied to the site AND every competitor, because a comparison asks about one market — scoring one locally and the others globally would rank answers to two different questions. Leave it out and each audit detects its own location, which is right for national or global businesses and wrong for local ones.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "gaps": {
+      "description": "Engines where a competitor appears in AI answers and this site does not.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "competitor": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "engine": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "engine",
+          "competitor"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "market": {
+      "description": "The market every audit in this comparison was scored in, or null when each domain's own location was detected.",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "quota": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "audits_skipped": {
+          "description": "Competitors skipped because the daily quota ran out.",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "audits_used": {
+          "description": "Fresh audits actually spent by this call.",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "cached_reused": {
+          "description": "Domains served from a recent cached audit; cost no quota.",
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "limit": {
+          "type": [
+            "number",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "remaining": {
+          "type": [
+            "number",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "reset": {
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "limit",
+        "remaining",
+        "audits_used",
+        "audits_skipped",
+        "cached_reused",
+        "reset"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ranking": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "domain": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "note": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "score": {
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "domain",
+          "score"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "skipped": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "detail": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "domain": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "reason": {
+            "description": "\"quota\" | \"unreachable\" | \"error\".",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "domain",
+          "reason"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ranking",
+    "gaps",
+    "quota",
+    "skipped",
+    "summary",
+    "market"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.6Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description richly discloses quota consumption per uncached competitor, partial-audit behavior with skipped lists, the guarantee that competitors are never silently dropped or scores invented, and over-quota error behavior with reset time. Subscription requirements are also clearly surfaced.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, trigger phrasing, return behavior, quota edge cases, and subscription prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the existing structured fields, the description covers purpose, input semantics, quota behavior, error handling, prerequisites, and fallback actions. The output schema handles return-value structure, so no additional detail is required.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful parameter context: competitors consume quota when not cached, and business_location is explicitly applied to the site AND every competitor to avoid mixed-market comparisons. This exceeds the schema-only meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Compare a website's AI visibility head-to-head against named competitors.' It also gives concrete user phrasings that trigger this tool, which clearly separates it from related siblings like get_ai_visibility or get_benchmark.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides explicit when-to-use triggers with example questions and explains a fallback path (call get_sample_audit if no subscription). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools beyond the sample-audit fallback.

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

Deploy Server