Local SEO Data

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

competitor_ads

Read-only

Retrieve the Google Ads a competitor domain is running, including advertiser details, ad counts, creative formats, run dates, and preview links for competitive ad analysis.

Instructions

Use when seeing what Google Ads a competitor domain is running. Returns advertiser, total_ads (after limit), total_available, and per creative: advertiser_name, creative_id, format, first/last shown, and preview_image_url / transparency_url links. Google's Ads Transparency Center does not carry ad headline or body text, landing URLs, or platforms. Costs 2 credits.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "competitor_ads"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max ads. Default: 20, max: 100
`domain`	Yes	Competitor domain (e.g. "competitor.com")
`format`	No	Ad format filter
`location`	No	Geographic location filter

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ads`	Yes
`domain`	No
`total_ads`	Yes
`advertiser`	Yes
`total_available`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Oct 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "ads": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "advertiser_id": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "advertiser_name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "creative_id": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "first_shown": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "format": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "last_shown": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "preview_image_url": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "preview_url": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "transparency_url": {
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "verified": {
+            "type": [
+              "boolean",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "format",
+          "first_shown",
+          "last_shown"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "advertiser": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "domain": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "total_ads": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "total_available": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "advertiser",
+    "total_ads",
+    "ads"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With readOnly/openWorld annotations already covering the safety profile, the description still adds real value: the 2-credit cost, the explicit data gaps (no headline/body text, landing URLs, or platforms), and the distinction between total_ads and total_available. Cost and coverage limits are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot 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 the trigger, then returns, then limitations and cost, with no filler sentences. The per-creative field enumeration is somewhat verbose given an output schema exists, but it is not wasteful enough to penalize heavily.

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?

An output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs to add cost and data-coverage caveats — both are present, including what the source fundamentally lacks. Nothing an agent needs to decide or call correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so domain/limit/format/location are already documented in the schema, and the description only implies limit behavior via 'total_ads (after limit)'. It adds no format or location filter semantics beyond the enum already present.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: what Google Ads a competitor domain is running. Clearly distinct from organic SERP or keyword siblings, though it doesn't explicitly separate itself from the local_services_ads sibling, which is the nearest neighbor an agent could confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use when seeing what Google Ads a competitor domain is running' gives a clear triggering context. No explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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