PR-CY MCP

get_pages_summary_by_dates

Получить суммарные поисковые метрики (clicks, impressions, position) из Google Search Console или Яндекс.Вебмастера. Возвращает исторические данные по сайту с группировкой по датам: day, week или month.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_pages_summary_by_dates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No	JSON-объект фильтра по URL. Формат: {"value": "<строка>", "compare_type": "equals\|notEquals\|startsWith\|endsWith\|contains\|notContains\|regex"}. compare_type опционален, по умолчанию contains. Для regex используется синтаксис RE2.
`period`	No	Группировка метрик по датам: day — по дням, week — по неделям, month — по месяцам.	day
`date_to`	No	Дата окончания периода. Формат YYYY-MM-DD. Должна быть не позже (today - 3 days). Если не указана, используется (today - 3 days). Должна быть >= date_from. Пример: 2024-02-28.
`date_from`	No	Дата начала периода. Формат YYYY-MM-DD. Должна быть не позже (today - 3 days). Если не указана, используется (today - 13 days). Должна быть <= date_to. Пример: 2024-02-26.
`project_id`	Yes	Идентификатор проекта.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data source (GSC or Yandex.Webmaster), that results are historical aggregates, and which metrics come back. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it disclose the data-lag constraint (only present in the schema) or any per-project/account requirements.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose (aggregate search metrics) front-loaded ahead of the return-shape detail. Slightly under-used space given the similarity to sibling tools, but no wasted text.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, return values and parameters are covered by structured fields, so the description only needs to sell the tool's role. Its remaining gap is sibling disambiguation from get_pages_summary and get_keywords_pages_summary, which the description does not address.

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%, so the parameters (url filter with compare types, period enum, date_from/date_to bounds, project_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the day/week/month grouping that the period enum already covers and adds no new parameter meaning; baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve aggregate search metrics (clicks, impressions, position) from Google Search Console or Yandex.Webmaster, grouped by date. The grouping dimension is clear, but the description never distinguishes this tool from the very similar sibling get_pages_summary (or get_keywords_pages_summary), so an agent must infer the difference from the tool name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer get_pages_summary over this date-grouped variant. The only usage signal is the implicit 'historical data by date' framing, which the agent must read out of the tool name.

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

All PR-CY MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?