gsc-mcp

quick_wins

Find pages ranking 4-15 with below-benchmark CTR for their rank, sorted by potential click gains from title/meta optimizations.

Instructions

Identify pages ranking between positions 4-15 whose CTR is below the industry benchmark for their rank.

Sorted by opportunity_score = (benchmark_ctr - actual_ctr) * impressions. High scores mean large click gains are possible with CTR optimisation (title/meta improvements).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "quick_wins"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses real behavior: the position window (4-15), the benchmark-comparison filter, the sort key (opportunity_score), and the exact scoring formula. It does not state permission/auth needs, result limits, or that it is a read-only operation, but the algorithmic disclosure is genuinely informative.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded, followed by the sort key and formula, then the interpretation. No filler. The formula sentence is dense but earns its place since it defines the ordering the agent will see.

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 values need no explanation, and the description is complete for the conceptual purpose. But with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no when-to-use routing against dozens of sibling analytics tools, it leaves the agent guessing on invocation details.

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 all four parameters (site, days, engine, min_impressions) are undocumented in the schema. The description explains the outcome but never clarifies these inputs — e.g. that days scopes the date range, engine selects the search engine, or that min_impressions interacts with the impressions term in the formula — so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Identify) applied to a specific resource (pages) with precise qualifying criteria (ranking positions 4-15, CTR below the rank benchmark). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like seo_striking_distance or get_search_analytics purely from the description.

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?

Usage is implied by the definition of the output ('CTR optimisation via title/meta improvements'), giving a clear sense of when the tool is relevant. However, it never states when to choose this over close alternatives such as seo_striking_distance, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites, so it falls short of explicit guidance.

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

Deploy Server