SEOctopus

by itsjwill

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

competitive_analyze

Analyze top competitors for any keyword by comparing their pages side-by-side with your own URL.

Instructions

Analyze top competitors for a keyword with side-by-side comparison

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": {
      "keyword": "<keyword>"
    },
    "name": "competitive_analyze"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`keyword`	Yes	Target keyword
`yourUrl`	No	Your page URL for comparison
`numCompetitors`	No	Number of competitors

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions analyzing and comparing competitors but fails to disclose behavioral traits such as data sources, freshness, limitations, or whether the tool is read-only. The agent cannot infer safety or side effects.

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?

The description is a single concise and front-loaded sentence, with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

Although the tool only has 3 parameters and schema coverage is high, the description does not explain what the output includes (e.g., metrics, format, comparison details). With no output schema, the agent lacks critical information about what to expect after invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds 'side-by-side comparison' which implies the output compares the user's URL to competitors, but otherwise no extra meaning beyond the schema. The parameters are adequately described in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool analyzes top competitors for a keyword with side-by-side comparison. It uses a specific verb ('analyze') and resource ('competitors for a keyword'). However, it does not fully distinguish from siblings like competitive_content_gap or rank_competitors, as it does not specify what aspects are compared.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as competitive_content_gap or competitive_serp_share. There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios to avoid.

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