gsc_content_decayPages that lost the most clicks versus the previous period (or the same period last year with compareTo=year). Refreshing decaying pages is usually the fastest SEO win. Also returns the biggest winners.
| 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/ | |
| compareTo | No | previous | |
| minPreviousClicks | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results include both losers and winners, and hints at comparison semantics, but does not cover the minPreviousClicks filtering, limit behavior, or output shape.
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?
Three tight sentences: definition, actionability, and secondary output. No filler and the key comparison option is front-loaded.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does not explain the returned fields (e.g., click loss, winning pages) or the role of minPreviousClicks. For a 5-parameter analytics tool with low schema coverage, this leaves gaps an agent may not fill.
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 20%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that compareTo can be 'year' (same period last year), which is the most consequential parameter meaning. Other params (days, limit, minPreviousClicks) remain undocumented in both places, keeping it below 5.
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?
States a specific verb-plus-resource: pages that lost the most clicks versus a comparison period. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like gsc_top_pages or gsc_quick_wins by naming the decay framing, and clarifies the winning-pages side output.
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?
Implies when the tool is useful ('fastest SEO win') and names compareTo=year as an option, but gives no explicit when-not-to-use or sibling routing (e.g., use gsc_quick_wins for opportunities). Usage is only inferable.
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.