Website Auditor MCP

Compare against competitors

compare_competitors

Compare your site's AI visibility against named competitors to see their scores and where they appear when you do not. Use one audit per uncached competitor, with quota and skipped summaries.

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that each uncached competitor costs one audit against a daily quota, that partial results rank auditable competitors and return `quota`/`skipped` fields without dropping silently or inventing scores, that an over-quota error includes a reset time, and that a paid subscription is required with trial terms. This is rich operational context the annotations could not convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and triggers, then behavior, then prerequisites. It is long, and the pricing/free-trial clause is dense, but essentially every sentence carries actionable information. Slightly heavy rather than wasteful.

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?

Covers purpose, triggers, quota economics, failure modes, and subscription prerequisites; since an output schema exists, return-value detail needn't be restated. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and what to expect.

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 three parameters (including the nuanced location behavior) are already documented in the schema. The description adds quota context around the competitors parameter but no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so 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 ('Compare a website's AI visibility head-to-head against named competitors') with clear scope. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_benchmark or get_ai_visibility without opening the 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?

Gives explicit trigger phrases ('how do I stack up against X and Y,' 'who does ChatGPT recommend instead of me') and names the alternative for the no-subscription case: call get_sample_audit first. When-to-use and fallback routing are both spelled out.

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

Deploy Server