Skip to main content
Glama

Seonix impact

gsc_impact
Read-onlyIdempotent

Seonix's own impact estimate: current vs potential traffic, keyword coverage, article impacts and top keyword opportunities.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gsc_impact"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idNoProject id or slug. Optional when the account has one project or the connector URL names it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the estimate contains, but it does not disclose data freshness, aggregation logic, or return format, which is a moderate gap for an analytics tool.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence that efficiently lists the main outputs without filler. It could be slightly improved by adding routing guidance, but it is well-structured and concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because there is no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining return values. It lists the major components, which is helpful, but it does not provide enough detail about the structure, time range, or calculation basis of the impact estimate for full completeness.

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 single project_id parameter is fully documented as optional with fallback behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states that this tool returns an impact estimate and lists the components included: current vs potential traffic, keyword coverage, article impacts, and top keyword opportunities. It is more specific than a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as gsc_coverage or gsc_opportunities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many GSC-related siblings. An agent could infer that it is for overview impact estimates, but the absence of any exclusion or alternative routing makes selection ambiguous.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.