Skip to main content
Glama

freedom-mcp

by com.getfreedomos

get_search_performance

Get search performance data from Google Search Console — queries, clicks, impressions, CTR, and average position. Use when the user asks about SEO performance, keyword rankings, organic traffic, or search visibility.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_dateNoEnd date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today.
site_urlYesThe site URL exactly as shown in Search Console (e.g., "sc-domain:example.com" or "https://example.com/")
companyIdYesFreedomOS company id to act within (you must be a member). Required for company-scoped tools.
row_limitNoMax rows to return (1-100). Defaults to 25.
dimensionsNoDimensions to group by. Options: "query", "page", "country", "device", "date". Defaults to ["query"].
start_dateNoStart date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to 28 days ago.
page_filterNoOptional filter: only include rows where the page URL contains this string.
query_filterNoOptional filter: only include rows where the query contains this string.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation by stating 'Get ... data', but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, authentication needs, or rate limits. The description is adequate but not thorough in disclosing behavior beyond the read implication.

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 wasted words. The first sentence defines purpose and outputs, the second provides usage guidance. Perfectly concise and front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but basic. It covers the main purpose and usage context but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or the fact that it's a read operation. It is minimally sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description lists the return fields (queries, clicks, etc.) which adds value beyond the input schema, but does not provide additional parameter-level details. It meets the baseline without significant extra contribution.

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?

The description clearly states it retrieves search performance data from Google Search Console, listing specific metrics (queries, clicks, impressions, CTR, average position). It also provides concrete use cases (SEO performance, keyword rankings, organic traffic, search visibility), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_performance.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Use when the user asks about SEO performance, keyword rankings, organic traffic, or search visibility.' This is clear and helpful, though it lacks guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.

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

All freedom-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tool set is heavily disambiguated by detailed routing descriptions, domain prefixes, and lifecycle verbs, so most tools have a clear intended purpose. However, at 297 tools there are still close pairs and overlapping decision surfaces (e.g., approval workflows, 'what should I work on' readers, multiple finance/ads readers) that require careful description reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is predominantly consistent snake_case verb_noun with strong domain prefixes like shopify_, x_, posthog_, and list_/create_/update_ patterns. Minor inconsistencies exist, such as several collection-returning tools using get_ (get_team_members, get_icps, get_okrs) instead of list_, and some generate_ vs create_ vs draft_ verbs, but the pattern is still predictable overall.

Tool Count1/5

297 tools is an extreme outlier and far beyond a usable MCP tool surface. Even a large suite has no justification for this count in one server; the agent would struggle to select among hundreds of similarly descriptive tools, and the natural 3-15 tool range is exceeded by nearly 20x.

Completeness4/5

The individual domains represented — OKRs, CRM/leads, Shopify, content pipelines, ads, PostHog, team hiring, knowledge, finance, and session management — are covered remarkably well with full lifecycle patterns. Minor gaps exist, such as no full deal CRUD, no delete for several Google/Shopify artifacts, and some analytical surfaces being read-heavy, but most workflows can be completed without dead ends.

Resources