search_get_paid_organicGoogle Ads search terms overlapping Search Console queries (paid vs organic).
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — no mention of required auth, data sources, join behavior, or what 'overlapping' entails, leaving behavioral context thin for a read/comparison tool.
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?
A single tight sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than deliberate economy.
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?
The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, but for a 17-parameter comparison tool with zero schema coverage and no usage or parameter guidance, the definition is far too thin to let an agent invoke it correctly.
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?
With 17 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the schema documents nothing, so the description must compensate entirely — yet it mentions no parameters (url, days, site_url, ad_account, campaign_name, etc.). This is a complete gap.
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 description identifies the domain (Google Ads search terms overlapping Search Console queries) but lacks a clear action verb and does not state what the tool actually returns or how it differs from siblings like search_get_top_queries or google_ads_get_summary. The 'paid vs organic' tag hints at a comparison but leaves the exact operation vague.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. An agent cannot tell from the description when this comparison should be preferred over related search or ads tools.
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.