SE Ranking SEO Data API MCP Server

Domain Competitors

domainCompetitors

Find competing domains in organic or paid search using a domain and country code. Identify rival sites and optional statistics to analyze your SEO landscape.

Instructions

Fetch domain competitors (v1/domain/competitors)

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": {
      "source": "<source>",
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "domainCompetitors"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	Specifies whether to find competitors in organic search results or paid search (advertising).	organic
`stats`	No	A flag to control the level of detail in the response. If set to “1”, additional statistical parameters are returned for each competitor.
`domain`	Yes	The primary domain for which to find competitors.
`source`	Yes	Alpha-2 country code of the regional keyword database.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the fetch action and endpoint, without explaining the output shape, whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, or how competitor data is determined.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise and front-loaded with the verb and endpoint, but it is under-specified. It provides little beyond restating the tool name, so its efficiency does not translate into useful guidance for an agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain expected results and usage context. It does neither, leaving an agent unable to anticipate the response or confidently choose this tool among many similar sibling tools.

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%, and the schema already documents all four parameters including the 'type' enum, 'stats' flag, 'domain', and 'source'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch domain competitors' with the endpoint v1/domain/competitors. It is clear about the action, but it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like domainKeywords, domainAdsByDomain, or domainOverview, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the organic/paid distinction (even though the schema has a 'type' parameter), nor does it name related tools or exclusion conditions.

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