mcp-seo-audit

split_branded_queries

Read-onlyIdempotent

Separate Google Search Console traffic into branded and non-branded queries by brand name over a chosen lookback period to compare search performance and spot non-brand growth.

Instructions

Split search performance into branded vs non-branded queries.
Separates query-visible traffic; one period alone does not establish growth.

Args:
    site_url: Exact GSC property URL
    brand_name: Your brand name to filter (e.g. "cdljobscenter")
    days: Days to look back (default: 28)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No
`site_url`	Yes
`brand_name`	Yes

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral nuance — that it operates only on query-visible traffic — plus a caveat about single-period results, but says nothing about rate limits or output characteristics.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by a short scope caveat and a compact Args block. The Args list repeats the schema's parameter names but is justified by the 0% schema description coverage; overall there is little wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The description covers purpose, the branded/non-branded scope, all three parameters, and a usage caveat, leaving only minor gaps such as how brand matching is performed.

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 must carry params, and it does: it clarifies site_url is the "exact GSC property URL," gives a concrete brand_name example, and restates the days default. This meaningfully compensates for the empty schema titles.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource — splitting search performance by branded vs non-branded queries — which is distinct from siblings like compare_search_periods or get_search_analytics. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

"One period alone does not establish growth" implies the intended usage context (trend comparison over time) but never names an alternative tool or an explicit when/when-not condition. Guidance is present but implied rather than directive.

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

Deploy Server