Impression-weighted SERP position, click projection on your own CTR curve, share of voice
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: one computes weighted average position, one projects clicks from a user-supplied CTR curve, and one computes share of voice. There is no overlap that would confuse an agent.
All names use snake_case and are descriptive, but they mix noun phrases (impression_weighted_position, share_of_voice) with a verb phrase (project_clicks_from_ctr_curve). No consistent verb_noun pattern, yet names remain readable and predictable enough.
3 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool addresses a distinct analytics need and earns its place without bloat or gaps.
The set covers core SERP analytics: position aggregation, click projection, and share-of-voice. A minor gap is the lack of a direct CTR-computation utility, but the tools are complementary and cover the main workflows without dead ends.
impression_weighted_positionImpression-weighted average positionAInspectCompute the impression-weighted average SERP position for a set of query rows, alongside the plain arithmetic mean and the gap between them. The arithmetic mean lets a 3-impression query count as much as a 30,000-impression one; the weighted figure describes where a typical impression actually happened. A positive weighting_shift means your high-volume queries rank worse than the unweighted average suggests.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | Yes | Query rows. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the mathematical behavior (weighted vs unweighted mean), defines weighting_shift, and interprets its meaning, which goes beyond a simple restatement. However, it does not mention any side effects, edge cases, or output structure.
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?
The description is three concise sentences, each providing meaningful information: the computation, the rationale, and the interpretation of a key output. No word is wasted, and the structure flows logically.
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 tool has a single parameter with a rich schema and no output schema. The description explains the core outputs conceptually and their interpretation, but it does not specify the exact return structure or handle potential edge cases. This is largely complete for a straightforward computation tool.
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?
The schema already documents all fields within the rows parameter with 100% coverage. The description does not add per-parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but it does provide context on how the data is used (e.g., positions and impressions). This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool computes impression-weighted average SERP position, arithmetic mean, and the gap between them. It is specific and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly mention how it differs from sibling tools like share_of_voice or project_clicks_from_ctr_curve, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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?
The description implies the tool is used when analyzing query rows with position and impression data, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention any alternatives. The context is understandable but no exclusions or clear alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
project_clicks_from_ctr_curveProject clicks against a supplied CTR curveAInspectProject how many clicks a set of query rows would earn at a target position instead of their current position, using a CTR curve THAT YOU SUPPLY. This server deliberately ships no built-in CTR table: every published average-CTR-by-position table is a third-party estimate over someone else's traffic, so applying one silently would disguise a guess as a measurement. Pass your own measured curve (Search Console clicks/impressions by position is the honest source). Positions between curve points are linearly interpolated; positions beyond the curve clamp to the last point rather than extrapolate, and are counted in clamped_row_count. If any row carries observed clicks, the output also reports how far the supplied curve is from your reality.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rows | Yes | Query rows. | |
| ctr_curve | Yes | Required. Map of position to click-through rate as a 0-1 fraction, e.g. {"1":0.28,"2":0.15,"3":0.10,"10":0.02}. Supply your own measured values. | |
| target_position | No | Target position applied to every row that does not carry its own. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so admirably. It discloses that there is no built-in CTR table, that positions between curve points are linearly interpolated, that positions beyond the curve clamp and are counted in clamped_row_count, and that calibration output reports deviation from observed clicks. This goes far beyond a basic summary.
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?
The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose, followed by a concise rationale, guidance, and key behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place; the tone is direct and avoids fluff. At roughly 150 words, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
For a tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers all critical context: purpose, why there is no built-in curve, how to source the curve, interpolation/clamping behavior, and diagnostic output. It even names clamped_row_count and calibration reporting. This is well-rounded and complete.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by emphasizing that the ctr_curve must be user-supplied and based on real measurements, and it clarifies behavior around interpolation/clamping that connects to the rows and curve parameters. It does not elaborate on target_position semantics beyond what the schema offers, but the overall context is enhanced.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Project how many clicks a set of query rows would earn at a target position instead of their current position, using a CTR curve THAT YOU SUPPLY.' This is specific and the verb 'project' plus the resource 'clicks from CTR curve' distinguishes it from siblings like share_of_voice or impression_weighted_position.
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?
The description provides strong contextual guidance: it explicitly instructs the user to supply their own measured curve, warns against built-in tables ('every published average-CTR-by-position table is a third-party estimate'), and suggests Search Console as an honest source. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives among sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!