Google Search Console Audit MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gsc_cannibalization

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect keyword cannibalization by identifying queries where multiple pages compete for the same search results, with clicks and positions for each page.

Instructions

Queries where several pages of the site compete for the same result.

Reads one page of up to 25,000 query/page pairs; on a very large property the tail is cut off, and the meta says how many pairs were analysed. Each row lists the competing pages with their own clicks and positions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Rolling window length ending today.
`period`	No	Named range: last_7_days, last_28_days, last_3_months, last_month, this_month, last_16_months.
`date_to`	No	End date YYYY-MM-DD. Defaults to today.
`no_cache`	No
`site_url`	Yes	`sc-domain:example.com` for a domain property, or `https://example.com/` with the trailing slash for a URL-prefix property. Call gsc_sites if unsure.
`date_from`	No	Start date YYYY-MM-DD. Overrides period and days.
`min_pages`	No	Minimum competing pages per query.
`min_share`	No	A page must hold this share of the query's impressions to count.
`row_limit`	No	Rows returned. Default 100, capped at 1000.
`thresholds`	No	Override the adaptive thresholds: min_impressions, min_clicks, high_visibility_impressions, ctr_curve.
`response_format`	No	`tsv` (default, compact) or `json`.	tsv

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv3.0.1Aug 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses a real operational limitation: only one page of up to 25,000 query/page pairs is read, the tail is cut off on large properties, and a meta field reports how many pairs were analyzed. This is valuable context that an agent cannot derive from annotations or the schema.

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 three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the scale caveat and output layout. There is no filler or repetition.

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 the read-only annotations, high schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers the key operational caveats: page limit, tail cutoff, and meta reporting. It is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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 91%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond saying rows list competing pages with clicks and positions, which is more about the output than the parameters; the baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the subject: queries where several pages compete for the same result, and the title reinforces the concept of keyword cannibalisation. It is specific enough to know what the tool returns, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling to distinguish itself.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings such as gsc_query, gsc_quick_wins, or gsc_content_decay. The topic is implied but there are no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives stated.

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

Deploy Server