rankparse-mcp

get_gsc_low_ctr_pages

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find pages with high impressions but low CTR: pages that Google is showing frequently but users aren't clicking. Good starting point for title/description rewrites. Requires Google Search Console to be connected. Direct the user to rankparse.com/dashboard/integrations to connect it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site`	Yes	Property URL e.g. "https://example.com"
`maxCtr`	No	Only include pages with CTR at or below this value 0–1 (default 0.05 = 5%)
`endDate`	Yes	End date YYYY-MM-DD
`rowLimit`	No	Max rows (default 25, max 1000)
`startDate`	Yes	Start date YYYY-MM-DD
`minImpressions`	No	Only include pages with at least this many impressions (default 500)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the integration requirement and directs the user to connect via a specific URL, which is useful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is three focused sentences: purpose, use case, and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the read-only nature, full parameter documentation, and clear annotation hints, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit statement of return format, but for a list-finding tool with a self-explanatory name and no output schema, this is acceptable.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional parameter-level semantics. The tool description's mention of 'high impressions' and 'low CTR' maps to existing schema descriptions of minImpressions and maxCtr, providing no extra value.

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?

The description clearly states the tool finds pages with high impressions but low CTR, which is a specific and actionable purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_gsc_low_ctr_queries by focusing on pages rather than queries.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('Good starting point for title/description rewrites') and a prerequisite (Google Search Console must be connected). It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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

All rankparse-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tool set is largely well-disambiguated with clear prefixes (get_, outreach_, zeekeo_) and detailed descriptions for each tool. Some tools like get_site_explorer and get_site_health could be confused at a glance, but their descriptions clearly separate their purposes. Overall, the naming and descriptions prevent meaningful ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent get_ prefix for data retrieval, with sub-prefixes like get_gsc_, get_page_, and outreach_/zeekeo_ for distinct workflows. There is no mixing of naming conventions (e.g., camelCase) or inconsistent verb usage. The naming pattern is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

With 63 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical 3-15 tool scope, categorizing as an extreme overflow. Even for a comprehensive SEO and outreach suite, the sheer number is overwhelming and likely includes redundant or overlapping functionality. This would be confusing for agents and users alike.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of SEO, backlink analysis, Google Search Console data, and outreach workflows, appearing nearly complete for its stated purpose. However, several tools are marked as 'v1 stub' (e.g., get_internal_links, get_schema_markup), indicating incomplete functionality. Despite these gaps, the overall coverage is extensive and well-rounded.

Resources

Need Help?