Retrieves daily Google Search Console metrics and top queries for a specific page, helping diagnose page-level SEO performance and prioritize fixes.
Serie diaria y consultas principales de una página exacta en Google Search Console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL completa que pertenece al sitio. | |
| endDate | Yes | Fecha YYYY-MM-DD. | |
| siteUrl | Yes | URL exacta de la propiedad verificada. | |
| startDate | Yes | Fecha YYYY-MM-DD. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of the returned data (daily series + top queries) but says nothing about row limits on 'consultas principales', date-range constraints, or data lag.
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 efficient sentence with the key scoping element ('página exacta') and the return content front-loaded. No waste, though it is terse enough to leave gaps.
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?
For a four-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description does convey what data comes back (daily series, top queries). It omits practical details an agent needs, such as how many top queries are returned or whether the URL must be an exact canonical match, leaving it merely adequate.
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 100%, so all four parameters are documented in the schema (siteUrl as verified property, url as belonging to the site, ISO dates). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description names a specific resource (an exact page in Google Search Console) and states what it returns: a daily series plus top queries. That distinguishes it reasonably well from the broader gsc_search_performance sibling, though it never names that sibling 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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'página exacta' — an agent can infer this is the page-scoped variant versus the site/query-level siblings, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of prerequisites like property verification or data-freshness limits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.