SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsseo-keyword-difficulty

seo-keyword-difficulty

Marketing & growth

View repository

Updated 10-16 09:46

About this skill

SEO Keyword Difficulty & Competitor Analysis

Given a target keyword (or a list of candidates), this Skill runs an automated research pipeline that produces a Keyword Decision Report: search volume, difficulty score, Top-10 competitor TDK breakdown, trend direction, and a final recommendation on whether to write for this keyword or pivot to a better variant.

This is Step 0 of the SEO automation pipeline — before any page or blog content is written, you must know whether the keyword is worth targeting.

MCP Dependency

seo-web-cafe (Keyword Difficulty Estimation MCP) is the primary data source for this Skill. It provides real KD scores, search volume, Top-10 competitor analysis, link budgets, and trend signals — far more accurate than WebSearch estimates.

MCP endpoint: mcp__seo-web-cafe__estimate_keyword_difficulty

  • Parameters: {keyword: string (required), gl: string (optional, default "us"), hl: string (optional, default "en"), force: string (optional, "1" to skip cache)}
  • Returns: score, level, keywordType, keywordVolume, keywordTrend, linkBudget, details (Top-10), reasons
  • Rate limit: 10 calls/minute, ≥6 second interval between calls
  • Auth: via URL token (?token=wc_mcp_...) embedded in MCP config

If MCP is not connected: Fall back to WebSearch for KD/Volume estimates. This is less accurate but still usable. Clearly label all fallback data with source ("WebSearch estimate" vs "seo-web-cafe MCP").

To enable: Add seo-web-cafe MCP to your agent with URL https://seo.web.cafe/kd/mcp?token=wc_mcp_your_token_here.

Trigger

Activate when the user asks to:

  • Research keyword difficulty / search volume / competition
  • Decide which keyword to target for a new SEO page
  • Analyze competitor TDK for a given keyword
  • Check Google Trends for a topic
  • Run "keyword research" or "keyword selection" before content production

Two Modes

Mode A: Single Keyword Deep Dive

User provides one keyword. You produce a full report for that keyword and suggest 2-3 alternative long-tail variants if the primary keyword looks too competitive.

Mode B: Keyword Comparison Batch

User provides 3-5 candidate keywords. You produce a side-by-side comparison table, ranking them by viability (volume × difficulty × trend), and recommend the best one to target first.

If the user doesn't specify a mode, default to Mode A (single keyword deep dive).

Phase 0: Collect Inputs

Ask the user in a single message:

  1. Target keyword(s) — the primary keyword, or a list of 3-5 candidates for Mode B
  2. Language/market — which Google domain to analyze (google.com for English, google.co.jp for Japanese, etc.). Default: google.com (English, global)
  3. Product/brand name — so we can check whether the brand already ranks for this keyword
  4. Content type — Page (tool landing page) or Blog (comparison/review article). This affects the competitor analysis lens: Page competitors are other tool pages; Blog competitors are review/comparison articles.

If any field is omitted, mark as "unspecified" and proceed with defaults.

Phase 1: Automated Research Pipeline

Execute the following steps in sequence. Each step uses specific tools — do not skip any step.

Step 1: Search Volume & Difficulty Score

Primary tool: seo-web-cafe MCP — call mcp__seo-web-cafe__estimate_keyword_difficulty with parameters {keyword: "[keyword]", gl: "[gl code]"}. This returns:

  • score: KD 0–100 (for brand keywords, represents "derivative content entry difficulty")
  • level: Very Easy / Easy / Moderate / Hard / Extremely Hard
  • keywordType: generic general keyword / brand brand keyword (auto-detected)
  • keywordVolume: Monthly search volume (12-month average)
  • keywordTrend: Rising phase signal {domain, volume, estimatedValue, ratio}, ratio ≥ 1 = rapidly rising
  • linkBudget: Link budget to enter Top-10 (referring domain count: low/mid/high)
  • details: Top-10 competitor row-by-row breakdown (position, domain, pageType, dr, visits, dedicated, titleHit, kwHit, kwHitTraffic, searchShare, sitelinks, eng, strength, contribution)
  • reasons: Judgment reasons, with detailed breakdown of signal weight contributions per signal

MCP call frequency limit: 10 calls/minute, ≥6 second interval between calls for batch queries. Repeated queries for the same keyword within 7 days hit the cache (instant return but still counted toward quota).

Fallback: If seo-web-cafe MCP is not connected or returns errors, use WebSearch to find publicly available estimates from Ahrefs/Ubersuggest/Semrush-style sources. Report the source of each metric.

Additional data: If Google Search Console MCP is connected AND the brand's site is verified in GSC, use mcp__google-search-console__search_analytics to pull the brand's existing performance data for this keyword (impressions, clicks, position, CTR). This supplements the MCP data with real ranking data.

For each keyword, collect:

  • Monthly search volume — from keywordVolume field (MCP) or WebSearch estimate
  • Keyword Difficulty (KD) score — from score field (MCP) or WebSearch estimate
  • KD level — from level field (MCP): Very Easy (≤20) / Easy (21-40) / Moderate (41-60) / Hard (61-80) / Extremely Hard (81-100)
  • Keyword type — from keywordType field (MCP): generic or brand
  • Link budget — from linkBudget.quality.mid (MCP): median referring domains needed to enter Top-10
  • CPC (if available from other sources — indicates commercial intent)
  • GSC data (if available): impressions, clicks, avg position for this keyword on the brand's site

Output format for each keyword:

| Keyword | Volume | KD (0-100) | KD Level | Type | Link Budget (mid) | CPC | Source |
|---------|--------|-------------|----------|------|--------------------|-----|--------|
| ai background remover | 18,000 | 45 | Moderate | generic | 45 refs | $1.20 | seo-web-cafe MCP |

Mode B batch processing: For 3-5 keywords, call MCP for each keyword sequentially with ≥6 second intervals. Summarize all results in a single comparison table.

Step 2: Top-10 Competitor TDK Analysis

Primary data: If Step 1 MCP call returned details array, it already contains Top-10 competitor data (position, domain, pageType, dr, visits, dedicated, titleHit, kwHit, kwHitTraffic, searchShare, sitelinks, strength, contribution). Use this as the baseline and enrich with TDK data.

TDK enrichment: Use WebSearch the target keyword on the specified Google domain. Then use WebFetch to read each of the Top-10 organic results, extracting their:

  • Title tag (full text + character count)
  • Meta description (full text + character count)
  • H1 tag (if visible in the fetched content)
  • URL structure (slug pattern)
  • Content type (tool page, blog post, comparison, video, etc.)

Merge MCP + WebFetch data: Combine MCP details (DR, visits, dedicated, strength) with WebFetch TDK data into a single enriched table. If a competitor is in both data sources, merge all fields. If only in one, note which fields are missing.

For each competitor, note:

  • Does their Title follow a pattern (e.g., "Free AI [Tool] — [Brand]" vs "Best [Tool] in 2025")?
  • Does their Description include pricing/free claims?
  • Is their H1 identical to the Title, or different?
  • From MCP data: is the domain dedicated (dedicated to this keyword)? Does it have sitelinks (strong brand signal)? What's its strength score?

Output format:

| # | URL | Title (chars) | Desc (chars) | H1 | Type | Pattern | DR | Visits | Dedicated | Strength |
|---|-----|---------------|-------------|-----|------|---------|-----|--------|-----------|----------|
| 1 | remove.bg/... | Free Background Remover... (58) | Remove backgrounds from... (152) | Background Remover | Tool page | Free + Brand | 91 | 50M | Yes | 0.82 |
| 2 | canva.com/... | AI Background Remover... (52) | ... (160) | ... | Tool page | AI + Feature | 93 | 800M | No | 0.75 |

Step 3: Google Trends Direction

Primary data: If Step 1 MCP call returned keywordTrend, it already contains trend signals: {domain, volume, estimatedValue, ratio}. ratio ≥ 1 indicates the keyword is in a rapid rising phase. Use this as the primary trend indicator.

Enrichment: Use WebSearch for "Google Trends [keyword]" or use WebFetch on trends.google.com if accessible. Cross-validate with MCP trend data.

For each keyword, determine:

  • Trend direction over the past 12 months: ↗ Rising / ↘ Falling / → Stable / ↕ Seasonal
  • Trend ratio (from MCP): ratio value, if ≥ 1 = rapidly rising
  • Peak month (if seasonal)
  • Relative interest (0-100 scale from Trends data)

If Trends data is not directly accessible, infer direction from MCP keywordTrend.ratio, recent search volume changes, news coverage frequency, and whether the topic is tied to a technology that's still growing vs. declining.

Step 4: SERP Feature Audit

Tool: WebSearch the keyword and note what SERP features appear:

  • Featured snippet? (Yes/No — and who holds it)
  • People Also Ask? (Yes/No — list top 4 questions)
  • Knowledge panel? (Yes/No)
  • Image pack? (Yes/No)
  • Video results? (Yes/No — count)
  • Sitelinks? (Yes/No — for which domains)

These features tell you what content format Google prefers for this keyword: if there's a featured snippet, a concise "What is" answer can win it; if there's a video pack, you may need video content too.

Phase 2: Synthesize — Keyword Decision Report

After collecting all data, synthesize into a final decision report. This is the most important output — the user needs a clear yes/no/pivot recommendation, not just raw data.

Viability Score Formula

Calculate a simple viability score for each keyword:

Viability = (Volume / 1000) × (1 - KD/100) × TrendMultiplier × IntentMultiplier

Where:
- TrendMultiplier: ↗ = 1.2, → = 1.0, ↘ = 0.7, ↕ = 0.5
- IntentMultiplier: CPC > $0.50 = 1.3 (commercial intent), CPC < $0.50 = 1.0, CPC = $0 = 0.7 (informational, lower conversion)

Higher viability = better keyword to target.

Additional consideration — Link Budget feasibility: If MCP returned linkBudget.quality.mid, compare it against the brand's current DR and referring domain count. If the brand's current referring domains < linkBudget.quality.low, the keyword is likely unattainable even if KD looks moderate. Flag this as a link budget warning in the report.

Decision Categories

Based on viability score, KD, and link budget:

Category Criteria Action
🟢 Green — Go KD ≤ 40 AND Volume ≥ 5,000 AND Trend ↗/→ AND brand DR ≥ linkBudget.low Write the page/blog. This keyword is attainable.
🟡 Yellow — Consider KD 41-60 OR Volume 1,000-5,000 OR brand DR < linkBudget.mid but ≥ linkBudget.low Write, but also target a long-tail variant simultaneously for safety.
🔴 Red — Pivot KD > 60 OR Volume < 1,000 OR Trend ↘ OR brand DR < linkBudget.low Do NOT target directly. Pivot to a long-tail variant (add qualifiers like "free", "online", "for [use case]").
⚪ No Data Insufficient data for evaluation Manual review needed. Gather more data before deciding.

Special case — Brand keyword: If MCP returned keywordType = "brand", the score represents "difficulty for third-party derivative content to enter this SERP". The brand itself can rank easily for its own brand keyword. Flag this clearly: "This is a brand keyword — the brand itself can rank, but third-party content targeting this word faces [KD score] difficulty."

Report Structure

Output the report in this exact format:

# Keyword Decision Report: [keyword]

## 1. Core Metrics
| Keyword | Volume | KD | KD Level | Type | Link Budget (mid) | CPC | Trend | Trend Ratio | Viability |
|---------|--------|----|----------|------|--------------------|-----|-------|-------------|-----------|
| [primary] | [V] | [KD] | [level] | [generic/brand] | [refs] | [$] | [↗/→/↘] | [ratio] | [score] |
| [variant 1] | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| [variant 2] | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

**Link budget feasibility**: [brand current DR = X, link budget low/mid/high = Y1/Y2/Y3 refs → 🟢 feasible / 🟡 borderline / 🔴 unattainable]

## 2. Decision
**[🟢 Green / 🟡 Yellow / 🔴 Red]: [recommendation sentence]**

Example: "🟢 Green — 'ai background remover' is attainable with KD 45 and 18K monthly volume. Write the tool page."

## 3. Competitor TDK Summary
[Enriched Top-10 table with MCP DR/Visits/Dedicated/Strength + WebFetch TDK]

**Pattern insights**: [2-3 sentences about what patterns dominate the SERP — e.g., "6 of 10 competitors use 'Free' in Title; only 2 use 'Best'."]

**SERP strength analysis**: [From MCP data: how many Top-10 results are `dedicated` (dedicated to this keyword)? How many have `sitelinks` (strong brand signal)? Average `strength` score of Top-10? This tells you how "locked" the SERP is.]

**Opportunity gaps**: [1-2 sentences about what no competitor is doing — e.g., "None of the Top-10 include a year (2025/2026) in Title — adding one could differentiate."]

## 4. SERP Features
| Feature | Present | Holder/Notes |
|---------|---------|-------------|
| Featured snippet | Yes/No | ... |
| People Also Ask | Yes/No | [top 4 questions] |
| Image pack | Yes/No | ... |
| Video results | Yes/No | [count] |

**Content format recommendation**: [e.g., "Featured snippet exists → ensure S1 What Is has a concise 40-60 char answer eligible for snippet capture."]

## 5. Recommended Long-Tail Variants (if Red/Yellow)
| Variant | Volume | KD | Why |
|---------|--------|----|-----|
| [variant 1] | ... | ... | [reason] |
| [variant 2] | ... | ... | [reason] |

## 6. Next Step
Based on the decision, the next action is:
- 🟡 → Run page-writer for primary keyword + blog-writing for a long-tail variant
- 🔴 → Re-run this Skill with suggested long-tail variants before writing anything

Quality Checklist

Before delivering the report, verify:

  1. All 4 research steps completed: Volume/KD ✓, Competitor TDK ✓, Trends ✓, SERP Features ✓
  2. Competitor count: At least 8 of Top-10 competitors analyzed (2 may be inaccessible — note which ones failed)
  3. Viability score calculated: Formula applied correctly, all multipliers accounted for
  4. Decision category assigned: Green/Yellow/Red/No Data, with clear action recommendation
  5. Pattern insights present: At least 2 observations about Title/Description patterns in the SERP
  6. Opportunity gaps identified: At least 1 gap that no competitor is exploiting
  7. Long-tail variants provided: If Red/Yellow, at least 2 alternatives with their own metrics
  8. Next step specified: Clear handoff to the next Skill in the pipeline

Resources

references/

  • references/kd-scoring-guide.md — Detailed explanation of the viability formula, KD interpretation thresholds, and when to trust vs. distrust third-party KD estimates.