Skip to main content
Glama
MoonEyes

google-ecommerce-mcp

by MoonEyes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

PageSpeed Insights

pagespeed
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit a mobile or desktop URL to get Lighthouse performance and SEO scores, LCP, CLS, TBT, and Chrome UX Report field data for diagnosing site speed issues.

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

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull public URL to test
strategyNoDevice profile Lighthouse emulatesmobile

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 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"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description meaningfully adds that scores are bounded 0-100, that CrUX data only appears when real-user data exists, and that the anonymous shared quota can be bypassed with PAGESPEED_API_KEY — real behavioral/rate-limit context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Roughly two sentences, front-loaded with the output payload and ending with the quota/auth caveat. No filler or repetition; each clause carries information. Dense metric enumeration is justified for a scoring tool.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values (scores, LCP/CLS/TBT, CrUX category) and the auth/quota caveat. The one shortfall is silence on the strategy parameter's effect on the returned scores, but otherwise it is complete for a two-parameter, read-only tool.

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% (url: 'Full public URL to test'; strategy: 'Device profile Lighthouse emulates', default mobile), so the description can lean on the schema. It adds no extra parameter semantics — notably it never mentions the mobile/desktop strategy knob, which materially changes results. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 description names a concrete resource (PageSpeed/Lighthouse analysis of a URL) and enumerates the exact outputs: 0-100 performance and SEO scores plus LCP, CLS, TBT, and the CrUX field category. An agent immediately knows what it gets back. No similar sibling exists (ga4/gsc/merchant tools are unrelated), so differentiation is moot, but the phrasing is still slightly output-centric rather than a clean verb+resource statement.

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 statement of when to choose this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The only conditional remark is the API-key/quota note, which is a prerequisite for access rather than usage guidance. A reader must infer the trigger ('I want to audit a page') entirely from the name.

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