mcp-seo-audit

get_search_by_page_query

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify search queries driving traffic to a specific page in Google Search Console, with lookback days and row limits for focused SEO analysis.

Instructions

Get search queries driving traffic to a specific page.

Args:
    site_url: Exact GSC property URL
    page_url: The specific page URL to analyze
    days: Days to look back (default: 28)
    row_limit: Rows to return (default: 20, max: 500)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No
`page_url`	Yes
`site_url`	Yes
`row_limit`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that row_limit maxes at 500 and the default look-back is 28 days, but says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or reporting-lag behavior that would help interpret results.

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?

The one-line purpose is front-loaded and every parameter line earns its place given the empty schema. The Args block mildly duplicates the property names but is justified by the 0% coverage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs to carry purpose and parameters, which it does. The remaining gap is routing guidance against the numerous analytics siblings.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it largely delivers: it explains site_url, page_url, days (default 28), and row_limit (default 20, max 500). The 'max: 500' bound is not present in the schema and is genuinely additive, though format detail for the URL fields remains thin.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (search queries) scoped to a single page, which is more precise than a generic analytics call. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_search_analytics or get_advanced_search_analytics that might also return query data, leaving the differentiation implicit.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many search-analytics siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The scope ('a specific page') is implied usage but the agent receives no routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server