Google Search Console MCP

Detect Content Decay

insights.content_decay

Read-only

Compare search clicks between two consecutive periods to reveal your site pages with the biggest traffic drops, pinpointing content decay for timely optimization.

Instructions

Identify content decay by comparing search clicks for your site pages between two contiguous periods and finding the pages with the largest traffic drops. Pagination metadata flags when either source period reached the local 100,000-row safety ceiling; Search Console itself may still return only top data.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_url`	Yes	The Search Console property identifier, exactly as returned by sites.list. Two formats exist: domain properties use 'sc-domain:example.com'; URL-prefix properties use the full URL including protocol and trailing slash, e.g. 'https://www.example.com/'. Passing the wrong format returns a permission error even when the user owns the site — call sites.list first if unsure.
`compare_days`	No	Number of days to compare (recent period vs previous period). Must be at least 1. Default is 30.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pagination`	Yes
`decay_count`	Yes
`decay_results`	Yes
`comparison_periods`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context by disclosing that pagination metadata flags when a source period hits the 100,000-row safety ceiling and that Search Console may still return only top data. This is useful beyond the annotations and schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and mechanism; the second adds an important data-limitation caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the rich input schema, full parameter descriptions, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It covers the central comparison method and the key safety-ceiling caveat. Nothing critical for an agent to select or call the tool correctly appears missing.

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 both parameters are already well documented: site_url explains formats and permission pitfalls, while compare_days explains default, range, and tradeoffs. The description reinforces the comparison logic but does not add significant parameter meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Identify content decay') and names the resource and method: comparing search clicks for site pages across two contiguous periods and finding pages with the largest traffic drops. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like insights.cannibalization and analytics.compare by signal and scope.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The usage context is implied by the phrase 'Identify content decay' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. Siblings such as insights.cannibalization and analytics.compare exist, but the description does not explain how to choose among them.

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

Deploy Server