searchconsole.search_analyticsQuery organic Search Console clicks, impressions, CTR, and average position for a site and date range to analyze SEO performance and identify traffic trends.
Query Search Analytics (organic clicks/impressions/ctr/position) for a property.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_date | Yes | ||
| site_url | Yes | ||
| row_limit | No | ||
| dimensions | Yes | ||
| start_date | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only aggregation but says nothing about quota/rate limits, row_limit behavior and truncation, default ordering, pagination, or that unverified properties fail — all material for a reporting query against a quota-limited API.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler — the resource and metric list come first. It is efficient, though the terseness edges into under-specification rather than pure concision.
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?
With 4 required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no annotations, the definition leaves the agent guessing about date formats, dimension vocabulary, and result limits. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but nothing else compensates for the gaps.
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 description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only 'for a property' loosely maps to site_url; start_date/end_date formats, accepted dimension values, and row_limit semantics (default 1000) go entirely unexplained.
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?
Names a specific verb (Query) and resource (Search Analytics) and enumerates the metrics returned (clicks/impressions/ctr/position) plus the scoping unit (a property). It is clearly distinct from the other Search Console siblings (sites.list, url_inspect, sitemaps.*), though it never says so explicitly.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over searchconsole.url_inspect or sites.list, no prerequisites (verified property/ownership, OAuth scopes), and no note on date-range or dimension expectations. The agent must infer all usage conditions from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.