gsc_cannibalizationQueries where two or more of your pages compete for the same keyword. Shows the leader, its click share and the competing pages, so you can consolidate or differentiate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| property | Yes | Search Console property id from list_properties, e.g. sc-domain:example.com or https://www.example.com/ | |
| minImpressions | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new context by disclosing the shape of the result set (leader page, click share, competing pages), which matters since there is no output schema. It does not mention thresholds, pagination, or sample-size limits.
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 tight sentences with zero filler; the definition of the dataset is front-loaded and the actionable takeaway closes it. Nothing is redundant.
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 four-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back but leaves the time-window, result-limit, and impression-threshold parameters entirely unexplained in both schema and description. Adding default behaviors (90 days, 50 rows, 30 impressions) would close the gap.
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 only 25% — just the property id is documented. The description says nothing about days, limit, or minImpressions, leaving the agent to infer their meaning purely from names and defaults. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate and it does not.
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?
Names a specific analytical resource (queries where 2+ pages compete) and the exact output it produces (leader, click share, competing pages). It is distinguishable from near-neighbors like gsc_page_queries or gsc_query_clusters, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied via the outcome clause 'so you can consolidate or differentiate' — it tells the agent what to do with results but never states when to pick this tool over gsc_page_queries, gsc_query_clusters, or gsc_quick_wins. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
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.