Retrieve paginated, read-only page inventory from a project sitemap with Google Search Console metrics and index status, filterable by type and search, to audit SEO performance.
Page inventory from the sitemap with GSC metrics and index state, paginated. Credits: 0, read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| page_type | No | ||
| project_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: read-only and zero credit cost. However, it omits anything about pagination behavior beyond the word 'paginated' (page-size caps, total counts), authentication/permission needs, or what index-state values mean.
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 short clauses, front-loaded with purpose and trailing the cost/safety note. Efficient and waste-free, though the 'Credits: 0, read-only' fragment is telegraphic rather than explanatory.
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?
An output schema exists, so return fields need not be described. For a five-parameter, filter-bearing listing tool with zero schema descriptions, though, the description is thin: the filter parameters and pagination limits are undocumented, which is the main remaining 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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Paginated' loosely hints at limit/offset, but search, page_type, and project_id are never explained, leaving two filter parameters with no semantics anywhere.
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+resource ('Page inventory from the sitemap') and adds the payload scope ('GSC metrics and index state'), which tells an agent exactly what it gets back. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent tools like audit_sitemap, crawl_website, or onpage_analysis, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The description never says when to use this tool versus the many sitemap/crawl/audit siblings, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g. that the sitemap must be audited first) or exclusions. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.