gbp.performance.fetchFetch daily performance metrics—calls, directions, clicks, and impressions—for a specified location and date range.
Fetch daily performance metrics (calls/directions/clicks/impressions) for a location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | ||
| start_date | Yes | ||
| location_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides good transparency by listing specific metrics (calls, directions, clicks, impressions), which helps the agent understand the nature of the returned data. Since there are no annotations, this adds necessary context but lacks operational details like rate limits or data freshness.
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 a single, highly focused sentence that defines the entire function of the tool with zero unnecessary words. It is perfectly front-loaded and easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given that an output schema exists, the description fulfills its role by defining the purpose and the specific data points available. It is a strong functional definition, although it does not mention any inherent limitations regarding metric aggregation or time periods beyond 'daily'.
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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description provides very little additional meaning beyond what the parameter names suggest. It fails to add critical semantics like expected date formats or constraints on location names, necessitating a low score.
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 uses a strong verb ('Fetch') and clearly defines the resource ('daily performance metrics') and the scope ('for a location'). It successfully distinguishes itself from other generic data list siblings like gbp.locations.list by specifying the metric types.
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 only states what the tool does without providing any guidance on when to use it versus other location or reporting tools. There are no exclusions or specific criteria provided for when this is the correct tool choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.