SEO GSC Wizard MCP

Core Web Vitals history (CrUX)

get_core_web_vitals

Read-only

Use this when the user asks about real-user page speed or Core Web Vitals. Chrome UX Report field data for a property (or a single page): the weekly history of Core Web Vitals (LCP, INP, CLS) plus FCP and TTFB, each with its p75 value (milliseconds; CLS is unitless), good/needs-improvement/poor rating, and the good-bucket density trend (a 0-1 fraction). periods run oldest first (28-day windows) and every series lines up with them by index. Also reports any week-over-week rating regressions. Where Chrome detected ads, adMetrics adds four experimental ad metrics (ad count, ad density, ad CPU, ad network weight) as a p75 trend each, with no thresholds and no rating; absent for sites with no ads. Needs a Chrome UX Report API key configured in the app; returns notConfigured otherwise, or noData when CrUX has too little real-world traffic for the target. Not for on-page HTML checks: use audit_onpage_seo.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No	Optional single page URL to measure instead of the whole origin.
`siteUrl`	Yes
`formFactor`	No	Device class: ALL (default), PHONE, DESKTOP, or TABLET.	ALL

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hint`	No
`noData`	No
`target`	No
`thenBy`	No
`docsUrl`	No
`listKey`	No	Name of the top-level field that holds the rows sortedBy describes.
`message`	No
`metrics`	No
`periods`	No
`siteUrl`	No
`nextStep`	No
`ordering`	No
`sortedBy`	No
`adMetrics`	No
`keySource`	No
`sortOrder`	No
`thenOrder`	No
`formFactor`	No
`periodCount`	No
`regressions`	No
`emptyBecause`	No
`latestPeriod`	No
`methodLimits`	No
`periodLabels`	No
`notConfigured`	No
`softNavMetrics`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 28, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / listKey

Added value: +{
+  "$ref": "#/properties/siteUrl",
+  "description": "Name of the top-level field that holds the rows sortedBy describes."
+}

Changed9 schema fields changedOct 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
```

addedOutput schema / properties / emptyBecause

Added value: +{
+  "$ref": "#/properties/siteUrl"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / methodLimits

Added value: +{
+  "$ref": "#/properties/siteUrl"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / nextStep

Added value: +{
+  "$ref": "#/properties/siteUrl"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / ordering

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "additionalProperties": true,
+        "properties": {
+          "sortOrder": {
+            "$ref": "#/properties/siteUrl"
+          },
+          "sortedBy": {
+            "$ref": "#/properties/siteUrl"
+          },
+          "thenBy": {
+            "$ref": "#/properties/siteUrl"
+          },
+          "thenOrder": {
+            "$ref": "#/properties/siteUrl"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / sortOrder

Added value: +{
+  "$ref": "#/properties/siteUrl"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / sortedBy

Added value: +{
+  "$ref": "#/properties/siteUrl"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / thenBy

Added value: +{
+  "$ref": "#/properties/siteUrl"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / thenOrder

Added value: +{
+  "$ref": "#/properties/siteUrl"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 17, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / softNavMetrics

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "$ref": "#/properties/target"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the API-key prerequisite, the notConfigured and noData failure modes, and the conditional presence of adMetrics with no thresholds or rating. It stops short of describing the return envelope or error surface further, so a 3 rather than a 4.

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 the use case and the exclusion comes last, which is the right ordering. It is a single dense paragraph and almost every sentence carries information the agent needs, though the adMetrics sentence is long enough to be scanned over.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to enumerate return values, yet it still explains periods ordering, index alignment, p75 units and ratings, and week-over-week regressions. Combined with the stated failure modes, an agent has enough to call this and interpret the result; only the siteUrl format is thin.

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 coverage is 67%, so url and formFactor are already documented in-schema, and only the bare siteUrl is undocumented. The description's 'for a property (or a single page)' does clarify how siteUrl and url relate, but it adds no format or domain guidance for siteUrl itself and never mentions formFactor. Baseline 3 is the right call.

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 first sentence pairs a specific trigger condition with the resource ('real-user page speed or Core Web Vitals'), and the body names the exact data source (Chrome UX Report field data) and metrics (LCP, INP, CLS, FCP, TTFB). It explicitly rules out the nearest sibling, audit_onpage_seo, so an agent can separate the two without opening either 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?

It gives both a positive trigger ('when the user asks about real-user page speed') and an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('Not for on-page HTML checks: use audit_onpage_seo'). Prerequisite (CrUX API key configured) and the fallback path when unmet are also stated.

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

All SEO GSC Wizard MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?