Google Search Console MCP Server

image_keyword_overview

Pulls top image-search keywords from Google Search Console, sorted by impressions, clicks, or position. Use it to identify which Google Images queries drive traffic and compare position changes between periods.

Instructions

Top image-search keywords for the site, sorted by impressions, clicks, or position. Filtered to type=image so it returns only what surfaces in Google Images, not web search. IMPORTANT: Base your analysis ONLY on the data returned. Report exact numbers from the results. Do not speculate about causes (e.g. algorithm updates, competitor actions) unless the data explicitly supports it. If the data does not contain enough information to answer a question, say so clearly rather than guessing. PRESENTATION: Always present these results as a rich, interactive visualization using artifacts. Use summary cards for key metrics, colour-coded indicators for severity or change direction (green for positive, red for negative), bar charts or sparklines for comparisons, and tabbed sections to organise different categories of results. Make the output visually scannable and dashboard-like rather than plain text or raw tables. POSITION: position is an impression-weighted average over real impressions, blended across queries, devices and countries. It is not a rank-tracker rank. Deep positions are only recorded when a user actually reaches that part of the results, so values beyond page one rest on sparse data. Treat absolute positions as directional and prefer position deltas between periods when judging change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Number of days to analyse (image search is lower volume, default 90)
`order_by`	No	Sort field	impressions
`site_url`	No	Override the configured property (e.g. sc-domain:example.com or https://www.example.com/)
`row_limit`	No	Maximum rows to return
`min_impressions`	No	Minimum impressions threshold

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv2.5.1Sep 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / site_url

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Override the configured property (e.g. sc-domain:example.com or https://www.example.com/)",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Addedv2.4.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It explains that results are filtered to image search, that position is an impression-weighted average rather than a rank-tracker rank, that deep positions rest on sparse data, and that absolute positions should be treated directionally. It also sets clear expectations for how results should be analyzed and presented.

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 longer than average, but every section earns its place: purpose, analysis constraints, presentation requirements, and metric interpretation are all useful. It is well-structured with clear section markers and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what data is returned, the image-only scope, the key metric semantics, analysis caveats, and presentation expectations. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results appropriately.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the meaning and reliability of position, which is more than just a sort field, and clarifies that image search is lower volume in relation to the default days parameter. This adds real value over the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 states the tool returns top image-search keywords for the site, sorted by impressions, clicks, or position. It explicitly scopes the data to Google Images via type=image, which makes it distinguishable from general web-search tools and from sibling trend-oriented tools like image_keyword_trends.

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 clear context: it is for image-search only, not web search, and should be used for reporting on returned data rather than speculation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but it provides enough situational guidance 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.

image_keyword_overview

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools