Skip to main content
Glama
fairquery

fairquery-web

Official
by fairquery
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Compare two SEO audits: before/after or site vs site (free)

web_compare_snapshots
Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare two saved or live SEO/AI-readiness snapshots to see score deltas, issues added or resolved, and changes in titles, meta tags, schema, AI-bot access, and more.

Instructions

Diff two SEO/AI-readiness snapshots field by field: score deltas, issues added/resolved, and changes to title, meta description, canonical, H1s, JSON-LD types, Open Graph, technologies, AI-bot access, llms.txt, sitemap, status and more. Three modes: (1) before + after = two snapshot objects you saved earlier from web_seo_audit (or site rows from web_batch_audit) - no fetching; (2) before + url = historical follow-up: re-audits url now and compares with the saved snapshot; (3) url + compareUrl = audits two live URLs (e.g. competitor vs own site, staging vs production). WHEN TO USE: track SEO regressions/improvements over time, verify a fix, compare competitors. Fetching: read-only GETs from this server with User-Agent "FairqueryBot ... Fairquery-MCP", 15 s timeout per request, body capped (1.5 MB HTML), max 5 redirects; URLs resolving to private/loopback/link-local addresses are refused (SSRF guard). Free, no token, no JavaScript rendering. RETURNS: {summary{before_url, after_url, before_checked_at, after_checked_at, seo_score_before, seo_score_after, seo_score_delta, ai_readiness_score_delta, issues_added, issues_resolved, changed_fields}, changes[{type:"change", field, before, after, delta?, added?, removed?} | {type:"issue_added"|"issue_resolved", code}], before, after (only fetched snapshots are echoed)}. Errors: INVALID_ARGUMENTS (wrong mode combination) plus INVALID_URL, BLOCKED_PRIVATE_ADDRESS, DNS_FAILED, FETCH_FAILED, TIMEOUT, TOO_MANY_REDIRECTS. WHEN NOT TO USE: for a single audit without comparison use web_seo_audit. COST: free (local fetches, no APIFY_TOKEN). EXAMPLE: {"url":"mysite.com","compareUrl":"competitor.com"} -> {summary:{seo_score_delta, issues_added, ...}, changes:[...]}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoURL to audit live: the "after" side (with before) or the first side (with compareUrl)
afterNoLater snapshot object to compare against before
beforeNoEarlier snapshot object (output of web_seo_audit or a web_batch_audit site row)
compareUrlNoSecond live URL to audit and compare against url

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.2.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds far more: fetch semantics (read-only GETs, User-Agent, 15s timeout, 1.5MB cap, 5 redirects), SSRF guard, no JS rendering, and a full error-code list. This is rich behavioral disclosure well beyond the structured fields.

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?

Dense but well-organized with front-loaded mode list and labeled sections (WHEN TO USE, RETURNS, WHEN NOT TO USE, COST, EXAMPLE). Slightly long, but every section carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly with the summary/changes/before/after structure and error codes. For a 4-param, mode-driven comparison tool, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how the four params combine into three modes (before+after, before+url, url+compareUrl). It clarifies the interaction of params that the schema documents only individually.

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 (diff) and resource (SEO/AI-readiness snapshots) plus the enumerated dimensions compared (score deltas, issues, title, meta, JSON-LD, etc.). The three numbered modes make it trivially distinguishable from siblings like web_seo_audit.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO USE (track regressions, verify a fix, compare competitors) and WHEN NOT TO USE with a named alternative (web_seo_audit for a single audit). Nothing is left to inference about selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools