query_matchWhich queries are one step away, and which were never yours. Returns queries stuck at ranks 11-20 with real volume, queries you rank well for but nobody clicks (intent mismatch), and queries several of your pages compete for without earning clicks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Lookback window, 7 to 180 | |
| site | Yes | Search Console property |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It describes the output content but fails to mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or pagination. The tool is read-only but this is not confirmed, leaving behavioral transparency weak.
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?
Two sentences with little waste. The first sentence is somewhat poetic but quickly leads into specific details. Every part adds value, though the opening could be more direct.
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?
With no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the main output categories but omits format details, permissions, or limitations. For a query tool, it is adequate but not thorough.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not explain how parameters affect results.
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 identifies queries that are close to top 10, have intent mismatch, or compete internally. It uses specific verbs like 'returns' and lists three concrete categories, distinguishing it from siblings like keyword_volume or serp_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 implicitly suggests use cases (finding rank-improvement opportunities, fixing intent mismatch, reducing cannibalization) but doesn't explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use the tool. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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.