Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SEOctopus

SEOctopus

by itsjwill
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

rank_competitors

Identify top ranking pages for a keyword to analyze competitor positions and improve SEO strategy.

Instructions

Get top ranking pages for a keyword

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": "rank_competitors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordYesKeyword to search
numResultsNoNumber of results

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as data source, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. It only states the basic action, leaving agents uninformed about side effects or limitations.

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 very concise (6 words), but it sacrifices detail for brevity. It could be expanded slightly to clarify scope without losing efficiency.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what 'top ranking pages' means, how results are ordered, or what data is returned, leaving significant gaps for a tool with multiple siblings.

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% with clear parameter descriptions ('Keyword to search', 'Number of results'). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate but not enhanced.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Get top ranking pages for a keyword' indicates retrieving pages that rank highly for a given keyword, but it does not clarify the scope (e.g., from a specific domain, all competitors, or globally). The tool name suggests competitor analysis, but the description lacks this context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like 'rank_check', 'competitive_analyze', or 'rank_history'. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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