Local SEO Data

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions(1)Admin

competitor_gap

Read-only

Compare your business against local competitors on rankings, reviews, ratings, and profile completeness to reveal advantages and gaps.

Instructions

Use when comparing your business vs local competitors on rankings, reviews, ratings, and Google Business Profile completeness. Returns your_business stats, competitor details with advantages, and your_gaps. Costs 10 credits + 2 per competitor actually returned (default 5 competitors = 20 credits; thin markets may return fewer and cost less).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`keyword`	No	Keyword to compare on (defaults to business name)
`location`	Yes	City and state
`competitors`	No	Number of competitors to analyze (1-10). Default: 5
`business_name`	Yes	Your business name

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`your_gaps`	Yes
`competitors`	Yes
`your_business`	Yes

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": {
+    "competitors": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "advantages": {
+            "items": {
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            "type": "array"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "profile_completeness": {
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "rank": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "rating": {
+            "type": [
+              "number",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "reviews_count": {
+            "type": "number"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "name",
+          "rank",
+          "rating",
+          "reviews_count",
+          "profile_completeness",
+          "advantages"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "your_business": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "profile_completeness": {
+          "type": [
+            "number",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "rank": {
+          "type": [
+            "number",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        },
+        "rating": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "reviews_count": {
+          "type": "number"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "name",
+        "rank",
+        "rating",
+        "reviews_count",
+        "profile_completeness"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "your_gaps": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "your_business",
+    "competitors",
+    "your_gaps"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0May 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds important behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses credit costs, per-competitor billing, the default competitor count, and that thin markets may return fewer competitors and cost less. These are material operational details not captured by readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or destructiveHint.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the use case, then states what is returned, then explains cost. Every sentence carries actionable information and there is no filler.

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?

With an output schema present and full schema description coverage, the description still provides the key operational context an agent needs: purpose, return structure at a high level, default behavior, and credit cost. Nothing important appears missing for correct selection and invocation.

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 useful meaning for the competitors parameter by explaining default count, billing per actually returned competitor, and cost variability in thin markets. It does not further clarify business_name, location, or keyword beyond the schema.

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?

The description states a specific comparison task: comparing your business vs local competitors on rankings, reviews, ratings, and Google Business Profile completeness. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on single-business audits, reviews, or backlinks.

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?

It gives a clear usage condition with 'Use when comparing your business vs local competitors...' but does not name when to avoid it or explicitly route to alternative sibling tools such as local_audit or reputation_audit.

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