get_performance_insightsDaily Google performance metrics (views on Maps and Search, calls, website clicks, direction requests, bookings) with totals. Google publishes data 2-3 days late, so the default range ends at the newest available day, not today.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days ending at the newest available date (default 28, max 540). | |
| profile_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It does so meaningfully by disclosing data latency and the default date-range behavior, though it does not describe permissions, rate limits, or response structure in detail.
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?
The description is two efficient sentences. It front-loads the returned metrics and then adds the latency/default-range caveat without unnecessary wording.
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 read-only metrics tool with no output schema, the description does enough by listing the metrics and totals returned and explaining the publication lag. It is slightly incomplete because it does not clarify the required `profile_id` or provide a precise response shape.
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?
The schema documents the `days` parameter, and the description adds useful context about why the range ends at the newest available day. However, schema coverage is only 50%, and the required `profile_id` parameter is not explained in the description at all.
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 states a specific resource and scope: daily Google performance metrics with an explicit list of included metrics and totals. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as review, post, rank-scan, and profile-management operations.
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?
It gives useful usage context by explaining Google's 2-3 day publication lag and that the default range ends at the newest available day, not today. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or name any sibling tool for comparison.
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.