AI Seo vs CiteHawk

In-depth architectural comparison of the AI Seo and CiteHawk MCP servers. Compare execution transports, security boundaries, tool capabilities, quality scores, and ready-to-paste client installation snippets for Claude, Cursor, Windsurf, and VS Code.

Which MCP Server Should You Choose?

Choose AI Seo when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Marketing domain.
• You prefer local stdio subprocess transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore AI Seo Details

C

Choose CiteHawk when:

• You need dedicated capabilities in the Marketing domain.
• You prefer remote streaming HTTP/SSE transport architecture.
• Your security boundary fits: No auth required (Free / Open Source).

Explore CiteHawk Details

Feature & Specification Comparison

Specification	AI Seo Marketing	C CiteHawk Marketing
Summary	MCP server for AI-SEO auditing: schema, robots.txt, llms.txt, citation scoring, and AEO/GEO rewrites	AI-search visibility (GEO) analytics: brand scores, competitor rankings, recommendations, evidence.
Category & Scope	Marketing	Marketing
Quality signal

Tools & Capabilities Breakdown

Ready-to-Paste Client Configurations

Paste either (or both) of these JSON server blocks into your client config file (e.g. claude_desktop_config.json or ~/.cursor/mcp.json).

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "ai-seo": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@automatelab/ai-seo-mcp"
      ]
    }
  }
}

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "citehawk": {
      "url": "https://www.citehawk.com/docs/mcp"
    }
  }
}

Related MCP Server Comparisons