Quattr

seo_ranking_movement_report

Read-only

Did rankings or clicks move? Compares two date ranges per keyword (or site-wide): biggest gainers and losers in clicks/impressions/average position. Use for "did our rankings move?" / "what changed vs last month?".

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>",
      "comparison_range": "<comparison_range>"
    },
    "name": "seo_ranking_movement_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No		keywords
`metric`	No		clicks
`source`	No	Where Google search performance data is read from. Use "bigquery" ONLY when the user explicitly asks for BigQuery as the source AND describe_data_sources reports it available from live customer configuration — it returns far more granular per-query data (privacy-suppressed impressions appear under "[anonymized by google]").	default
`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`	Yes	Explicit comparison range, e.g. "2026-04-01 to 2026-04-30"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of comparison (per keyword or site-wide) but says nothing about return format, pagination, or data-source behavior, so it adds limited value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three compact segments, front-loaded with the guiding question followed by what is compared and when to use it. No filler, though it could be tightened by folding the trigger examples into the first sentence.

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 a 5-param, 2-required read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the two-range comparison, scope, and metrics, and hints at the gainers/losers output shape. The main gap is any note on differentiation from compare_periods, but nothing essential to invoking it 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 coverage is 60%, with the source and date_range params documented in the schema itself. The description adds mapping value by implying scope ('per keyword or site-wide') and metric ('clicks/impressions/average position'), which correspond to enum params, but it adds no format or default detail for comparison_range. A baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: it compares two date ranges per keyword or site-wide and reports biggest gainers/losers across clicks/impressions/average position. The opening question frames the intent sharply. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling compare_periods, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasing ('did our rankings move?', 'what changed vs last month?') so the agent can match user intent. It provides positive usage context but names no alternative tools and gives no when-not conditions, leaving the compare_periods overlap unresolved.

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?