Skip to main content
Glama
MoonEyes

google-ecommerce-mcp

by MoonEyes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

PageSpeed Insights

pagespeed
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a URL's Lighthouse performance and SEO scores, Core Web Vitals (LCP, CLS, TBT), and Chrome UX Report field data for mobile or desktop when available.

Instructions

Lighthouse performance and SEO scores (0 to 100) plus LCP, CLS and TBT for a URL, and the Chrome UX Report field category when Google has real-user data. Set PAGESPEED_API_KEY to avoid the shared anonymous quota.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull public URL to test
strategyNoDevice profile Lighthouse emulatesmobile
client_idNoClient id from clients_list. Required when several clients are registered; empty uses the only client (or the environment variables when there is no client registry)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / client_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Client id from clients_list. Required when several clients are registered; empty uses the only client (or the environment variables when there is no client registry)",
+  "title": "Client Id"
+}
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / strategy / description
      Added value: +"Device profile Lighthouse emulates"
    • addedInput schema / properties / strategy / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "mobile",
+  "desktop"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Added value: +"Full public URL to test"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: a quota/rate-limit mechanism (shared anonymous quota, mitigated by PAGESPEED_API_KEY) and the conditional nature of CRUX field data ('when Google has real-user data'). It stops short of noting the long run-time typical of Lighthouse audits.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the one operational caveat. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 annotations covering the safety profile, a fully documented schema and no output schema to explain, the description covers purpose, quota behavior and CRUX availability. The main missing piece for correct invocation is expectation-setting about result latency, which matters for a remote Lighthouse audit.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (url, strategy with its mobile/desktop enum, client_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, such as what the mobile/desktop default means for interpretation, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (a URL's PageSpeed/Lighthouse audit) and enumerates exactly what comes back: performance and SEO scores 0-100 plus LCP, CLS, TBT and CRUX field data. No sibling tool covers a URL's Lighthouse audit, so an agent can route here unambiguously.

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 output description and by the PAGESPEED_API_KEY note, which tells the agent how to avoid the shared anonymous quota. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no comparison to nearby siblings like gsc_inspect_url or indexing_status, and no stated prerequisite (public URL) beyond what the schema already requires.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools