Skip to main content
Glama
Suganthan-Mohanadasan

Google Search Console MCP Server

by Suganthan-Mohanadasan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

topic_cluster_performance

Analyze how a group of pages performs as a whole. Enter a URL path pattern to aggregate clicks, impressions, CTR, and position, plus top pages and queries.

Instructions

See how a group of pages performs as a whole. Aggregates clicks, impressions, CTR, and position for all pages matching a URL path pattern, plus top 5 pages and queries. 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoNumber of days to analyse
path_patternYesURL path pattern to match (e.g. /blog/seo)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.2

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does this well by explaining the position metric's blended, impression-weighted nature, warning about sparse deep-position data, and instructing the agent to rely only on returned data and avoid unsupported speculation. It stops short of stating data freshness or explicit read-only behavior, but the essential behavioral caveats are present.

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?

The description is longer than average, but it is well-structured with clear IMPORTANT, PRESENTATION, and POSITION sections. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional instructions about analysis discipline and metric interpretation earn their place, even though the presentation guidance is somewhat verbose.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by naming the aggregate metrics, the top pages/queries component, and the key position caveats. It is slightly vague about whether "between periods" comparisons are automatically included in the result, but it provides enough information for an agent to call the tool correctly and interpret the most subtle metric.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description restates path_pattern conceptually but adds no new semantic detail beyond "URL path pattern" as a grouping mechanism. It does not explain wildcard syntax or period comparison semantics, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 is explicit: "See how a group of pages performs as a whole" and lists exact metrics (clicks, impressions, CTR, position) plus top pages and queries. It clearly identifies the resource (pages matching a URL path pattern) and distinguishes itself from single-page or site-wide sibling tools.

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 first sentence establishes the use case clearly: use this when you need aggregate cluster/group performance across a URL path pattern. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is unmistakable and no contradictory usage signals appear.

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