Skip to main content
Glama
vantagemcp

vantage-mcp

by vantagemcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Find who AI cites for a question

find_citation_leaders
Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify which domains dominate AI-answer citations for a keyword, and check if a specific domain ranks among them. Reveals who wins AI search for a topic and how competitors compare.

Instructions

Find which domains dominate AI-answer citations for a topic/keyword, and optionally check whether a specific domain shows up among them. Use this to answer 'who's winning AI search for this topic' or 'is my competitor cited more than me for X'.

Read-only: no side effects, safe to retry. Costs 10 quota units/call (free tier is 30 units/month shared across every metered tool, so up to 3 calls to this tool alone if nothing else is used that period).

Returns: {"keyword", "platform", "top_domains" (list of {"domain", "mentions"}, most-cited domains for this keyword/platform, order as ranked by the provider), "top_domains_limit" (int, the provider's own cap on this list - absence from it is NOT evidence a domain has zero citations, only that it did not rank in the top top_domains_limit), "compare_domain_rank" (int|null, only present when compare_domain was passed: the domain's 1-based position in top_domains, or null if it did not rank in the top top_domains_limit), "country", "language", "source_mix" ({"community_pct" (share of these mentions that go to community sites such as Reddit, YouTube, X, Quora), "community_domains", "other_domains"}: a high community_pct means this topic is won by what people say about a brand elsewhere, not by any one site's pages)}.

This tool's citation universe is the provider's tracked mention corpus for the keyword, which is a different measurement from analyze_citation_structure's single live answer - the two can legitimately disagree on whether a given domain shows up.

Use check_prompt_coverage instead if you already know which domain you care about and just want to know whether it is cited.

Args: keyword: the topic/query to check, e.g. "best project management tool". platform: "chat_gpt" or "google" (Google's AI Overview). Defaults to chat_gpt. Perplexity and Gemini aren't available - the underlying data provider doesn't cover them for this check. compare_domain: optional bare domain to look up in the results (exact match against the registrable domain, e.g. "notion.so" will not match "mynotion.so.example.com"). country: market to check, e.g. "Italy". Defaults to "United States". chat_gpt only has data for the United States; use platform "google" for any other country. language: language code, e.g. "it". Defaults to "en" (the only option for chat_gpt).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryNoUnited States
keywordYes
languageNoen
platformNochat_gpt
compare_domainNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.7.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / country
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "United States",
+  "title": "Country",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / language
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "en",
+  "title": "Language",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv1.5.2

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/destructive, so the description earns credit for adding quota economics (10 units/call, 30/month shared, max ~3 calls), provider coverage gaps, and the crucial caveat that absence from top_domains is not evidence of zero citations. It also explains that its measurement universe can legitimately disagree with analyze_citation_structure.

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 purpose, then cost, then returns, then args – a sensible order. It is long (roughly 300 words) and the 'Read-only: no side effects' clause partly repeats the annotations, but nearly every other sentence adds non-redundant, decision-relevant detail.

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 no output schema, the description fully documents the return shape (top_domains, compare_domain_rank, source_mix, etc.) and the interpretation caveats an agent needs. For a 5-param, no-schema tool it is complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: keyword meaning plus example, platform enum values with default and what's excluded, compare_domain with exact-match/registrable-domain semantics and a worked example, country default and chat_gpt limitation, and language default with 'it' example.

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 verb (find) and resource (domains dominating AI-answer citations for a keyword), plus the exact user questions it answers ('who's winning AI search for this topic'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from analyze_citation_structure (single live answer vs. tracked mention corpus) and check_prompt_coverage, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives direct routing rules: use check_prompt_coverage 'instead if you already know which domain you care about,' and use the compare_domain arg when you want a specific domain's rank. It also states platform availability limits (Perplexity/Gemini unavailable) and country/language constraints (chat_gpt is US/English only), which are genuine when-to-use conditions.

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