Skip to main content
Glama
metehan777

Semrush MCP Server

by metehan777

competitor_research

Identify organic competitors for any domain to analyze market positioning and inform SEO strategy.

Instructions

Find organic competitors for a domain

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
databaseNo
limitNo

Implementation Reference

  • Implements the handler logic for the 'competitor_research' tool by parsing input arguments using the schema and calling the Semrush API 'domain_organic_competitors' endpoint to fetch organic competitors data for the given domain.
    case 'competitor_research': {
      const { domain, database, limit } = CompetitorResearchSchema.parse(args);
      data = await callSemrushAPI('domain_organic_competitors', { 
        domain,
        database,
        display_limit: limit,
        export_columns: 'Dn,Cr,Np,Or,Ot,Oc,Ad,At,Ac',
      });
      break;
  • Zod schema defining the input structure for the 'competitor_research' tool, including required domain and optional database and limit parameters.
    const CompetitorResearchSchema = z.object({
      domain: z.string().describe('Domain to analyze'),
      database: z.string().default('us').describe('Database code'),
      limit: z.coerce.number().default(10).describe('Number of competitors'),
    });
  • src/index.ts:210-218 (registration)
    Registers the 'competitor_research' tool in the MCP server's listTools response, specifying its name, description, and referencing the input schema.
    {
      name: 'competitor_research',
      description: 'Find organic competitors for a domain',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: CompetitorResearchSchema.shape,
        required: ['domain'],
      },
    },
Behavior1/5

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 action ('Find') without explaining what the tool returns (e.g., list of domains, metrics), whether it's read-only or mutative, rate limits, or authentication needs. This is inadequate for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential action.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or behavioral traits. For a tool that likely outputs structured competitor data, this leaves critical gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 3 parameters ('domain', 'database', 'limit') are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the tool name—it doesn't explain what 'database' refers to (e.g., a specific dataset) or how 'limit' affects results. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'Find organic competitors for a domain' clearly states the verb ('Find') and resource ('organic competitors'), but it's somewhat vague about what constitutes 'organic competitors' (e.g., SEO competitors, similar websites). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'domain_organic_search' or 'domain_overview', which might overlap in purpose.

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 alternatives like 'domain_organic_search' or 'domain_overview'. The description implies it's for competitor analysis, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative use cases with sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/metehan777/semrush-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server