SEO MCP Server

Compare against a competitor

compare_competitor

Audit your page against a competitor's side by side, revealing only the differences to uncover what they do that you don't for a shared target query.

Instructions

Audit your page and a competitor's side by side, and report only where they differ. Use it to answer 'what are they doing that we are not' for a query you both target. Read-only, and it fetches both pages.

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": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "competitor": "<competitor>"
    },
    "name": "compare_competitor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Your page.
`competitor`	Yes	The competing page to measure against.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does so directly: 'Read-only, and it fetches both pages' discloses the safety profile and the external network action. It does not go into output format or failure behavior, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the action and output rule come first, the use case second, and the behavioral note last. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: inputs are fully covered by the schema, the purpose is clear, and the read-only/fetch behavior is stated. It only lacks a more precise description of what 'differences' means in the report.

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%: 'url' and 'competitor' are already documented as 'Your page' and 'The competing page to measure against'. The description reinforces the side-by-side relationship but adds no per-parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action ('Audit your page and a competitor's side by side') and a precise output contract ('report only where they differ'). The comparison framing distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like audit_page or crawl_site, which audit a single site.

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?

Gives an explicit use case: answer 'what are they doing that we are not' for a query both pages target. It does not name exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server