Skip to main content
Glama
Mrshahidali420

Google Search Console MCP Server

gsc_performance

Fetch search performance metrics: clicks, impressions, CTR, position. For a site, dimension, or all properties. Set date range or trailing days, data_state for latest data.

Instructions

Search Analytics performance: clicks, impressions, ctr, position.

Three shapes, chosen by what is passed:

  • No site -> one row per property the store knows about (scope: "portfolio", sites, totals aggregated across all of them).

  • site, no dim -> a single aggregate for that site (scope: "site", plus clicks/impressions/ctr/position).

  • site and dim -> per-dim rows for that site, sorted by clicks descending (scope: <dim>, rows, totals aggregated across rows). dim must be one of perf.VALID_DIMENSIONS ("query", "page", "country", "device", "date", "searchAppearance").

Date window: pass start_date AND end_date (both "YYYY-MM-DD") for an explicit range, or leave both unset and get the trailing days calendar days ending yesterday. start_date without end_date is refused outright -- {"ok": False, "note": "start_date needs end_date (both YYYY-MM-DD)"} -- rather than guessing an end.

IMPORTANT -- data_state defaults to "all", not Google's own API default of "final". Passing data_state="final" attaches a warning string explaining why: data_state='final' silently omits the most recent ~perf.FINAL_LAG_DAYS (3) day(s) of data -- Google has not finished processing them yet, and nothing in the response marks the gap. The Search Console web UI has no such restriction and shows those days immediately, so a 'final' query compared against what a human sees in the UI right now will look like a discrepancy or a missed traffic change when both are simply answering different questions. Prefer data_state='all' (the default here) unless you specifically need finalized-only rows; its trade-off is that the last day or two may still revise upward on a later query.

On a missing, expired, or rejected token, returns {"ok": False, "error": "auth_required", "fix": ...}; if no OAuth client is configured at all, {"ok": False, "error": "not_configured", "fix": ...}. Any other failure -- a bad dimension, an unroutable site, a Search Console API error -- comes back as {"ok": False, "start", "end", "note": str(exc)} rather than raising.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dimNo
daysNo
siteNo
limitNo
end_dateNo
data_stateNoall
start_dateNo
search_typeNoweb
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: the non-standard default of data_state='all', the 3-day lag warning for 'final', the exact error response formats (auth_required, not_configured, and generic failure with start/end/note), and the refusal of incomplete date ranges. This goes well beyond basic expectations.

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?

The description is long but well-structured with a clear summary, bulleted shapes, separate sections for date windows, data_state, and error handling. Each sentence adds necessary operational detail, and the organization aids quick comprehension.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers input modes, output shapes, date logic, data_state semantics, and error handling, making it highly complete for the tool's complexity. The only minor gaps are limit and search_type, but these do not undermine overall completeness.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description explains most parameters (site, dim, start_date, end_date, days, data_state) in detail, including valid dim values and date defaults. However, 'limit' and 'search_type' are not described, leaving their behavior ambiguous.

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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as retrieving Search Analytics performance metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, position) and details three output shapes based on parameters. This makes it distinct from sibling tools like gsc_list_sites (site listing) and gsc_quota (quota checks).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage guidance for parameter combinations (e.g., no site → portfolio aggregate, site+dim → per-dimension rows) and date window behavior, including the refusal of start_date without end_date. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough to select it appropriately.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Mrshahidali420/google-search-console-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server