gsc-mcp

check_alerts

Scan Google Search Console data for SEO risks: detect when one query drives most clicks and when pages earn high impressions at low rankings, so you can reduce fragility and improve content.

Instructions

Scan for structural SEO risks: traffic concentration and high-impression low-rank pages.

Flags 'traffic_concentration' (severity: high) when a single query drives more than 50% of all clicks (fragility indicator) and 'high_impression_low_rank' (severity: medium) when a page gets more than 5000 impressions at position > 10 (content optimisation opportunity).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`days`	No
`site`	Yes
`engine`	No	google

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.0Oct 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / engine

Added value: +{
+  "default": "google",
+  "title": "Engine",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.4.1Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 disclosure burden. It does reveal meaningful behavioral detail — the 50%-of-clicks and >5000-impressions-at-position->10 thresholds plus severity levels — but says nothing about read-only vs mutating nature, permissions, or rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then two tightly-worded clauses that each define an alert and its trigger. No filler sentences and every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return format needn't be described, and the alert logic is well covered. However, for a three-parameter tool with no schema descriptions, the complete silence on parameters leaves a real gap for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never references any of the three parameters (site, days, engine). With the schema supplying no semantics, the description should compensate but does not, leaving 'days' and 'engine' entirely undefined.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('structural SEO risks') and enumerates exactly the two alert types produced with their thresholds. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like traffic_health_check or analytics_anomalies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite several overlapping siblings (traffic_health_check, analytics_anomalies, traffic_drops, seo_striking_distance). The agent must infer when this scan is preferable to those.

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

Deploy Server