Quattr

paid_impression_share

Read-only

How much of the available paid impressions are we winning, and how much are we losing to rank? Google Ads search impression share, top / absolute-top impression share, and lost-IS (rank) for one segment — optionally RANKED by keyword, campaign, or intent (group_by) and compared to a prior period. This is auction COVERAGE (impression share), NOT competitor market share (use market_share_overview with medium='google/cpc' for SOV). ALWAYS per segment — called without one it lists the available segments.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "date_range": "<date_range>"
    },
    "name": "paid_impression_share"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top_n`	No	How many rows to return when group_by is set (site total ignores this).
`metrics`	No	Which impression-share metrics to return; defaults to search_impression_share + lost_impression_share
`segment`	No	Tracked segment ID; omit to get the list of available segments
`campaign`	No	Filter by campaign name (Google Ads campaign)
`group_by`	No	Rank the impression-share metrics BY this attribute (top-N) instead of a single segment total — keyword, campaign, or intent (e.g. "Avg Search Impression Share by intent, this month vs last month" is group_by:"intent" + comparison_range).
`filter_op`	No	How to match the campaign filter value (default exact match)	eq
`date_range`	Yes	Explicit date range, e.g. "2026-05-01 to 2026-05-31". Both endpoints are INCLUSIVE — the END day is covered (a 7-day range = 7 days). Quattr weeks run Sunday–Saturday; for "last week" use the most recent complete Sun–Sat span.
`comparison_range`	No	Explicit comparison range for period-over-period, e.g. "2026-04-01 to 2026-04-30"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: calling with no segment returns the list of available segments rather than an error, and results are always scoped per segment. It stops short of describing pagination or response shape.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the business question, then the metric scope, then the disambiguation and grain rule. Every clause carries routing or scoping information; capitalization of COVERAGE and ALWAYS is used sparingly to flag the two highest-risk misreadings.

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?

For an 8-parameter read-only analytics tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, grain, default metric behavior, and the ranked-vs-total distinction. It does not describe the returned row shape or column set, which an agent would have to infer, but nothing needed to select or invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema already documents each parameter thoroughly, including enum values, defaults, and the inclusive-endpoint date semantics. The description reinforces intent-to-parameter mapping (ranked breakdown via group_by, period-over-period via comparison_range) but adds little syntax or constraint information the schema does not already carry, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific question the tool answers ('how much of available paid impressions are we winning, and how much are we losing to rank') plus the exact metric family (search/top/absolute-top impression share, lost-IS rank) and the per-segment grain. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the similarly named sibling market_share_overview, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: 'ALWAYS per segment — called without one it lists the available segments' and 'NOT competitor market share (use market_share_overview with medium="google/cpc" for SOV)', complete with the argument to pass the alternative. It also names the group_by + comparison_range combination for ranked comparisons.

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

All Quattr 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?