search_get_lighthouseLighthouse scores and CWV for this account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| date_to | No | ||
| page_id | No | ||
| sort_by | No | ||
| user_id | No | ||
| site_url | No | ||
| client_id | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| ad_account | No | ||
| ig_user_id | No | ||
| user_email | No | ||
| range_preset | No | ||
| activity_only | No | ||
| campaign_name | No | ||
| property_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover only readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, leaving most behavior undocumented. With 17 optional filters and no required parameters, the description does not say what happens when filters are omitted, whether results are aggregated or per-page, or any pagination/limit behavior. Only the safety profile comes from annotations, so the description carries the rest and delivers almost nothing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is short, but it is short by omission rather than by economy — a single noun-phrase fragment with no verb, no scope, and no actionable content. Under-specification, not conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 17-parameter, zero-required, zero-coverage tool with no usage guidance, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot confidently populate or omit any of the filters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 17 parameters (url, days, limit, date_from/to, page_id, site_url, client_id, ad_account, ig_user_id, activity_only, etc.). The description mentions none of them, leaving the agent no way to know that e.g. ad_account or ig_user_id are irrelevant to a Lighthouse audit, or how url/site_url/page_id differ.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The fragment names the resource ('Lighthouse scores and CWV') so the agent knows the subject matter is a page-performance audit, but there is no verb and no scope detail ('this account' is unexplained). It is distinguishable from analytics_get_ga4_metrics or search_get_metrics only by topic, not by any stated operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance at all. Siblings like search_get_page_metadata, search_get_metrics and analytics_get_organic_roi are plausible alternatives for page-level data, and the description gives no condition for choosing this one over any of them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.