Google Search Console Audit MCP

by acamolese

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

gsc_ctr_gaps

Read-onlyIdempotent

Finds high-ranking pages or queries with lower-than-expected CTR, highlighting snippet improvements as quick wins.

Instructions

Rows that rank well but are clicked far less than their position implies.

The snippet, not the ranking, is the problem, which makes these the cheapest fixes available. expected_ctr is what a result at that position normally earns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Rolling window length ending today.
`entity`	No	Analyse by `page` (default) or by `query`.	page
`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.
`gap_ratio`	No	Flag rows whose CTR is below this fraction of the expected CTR.
`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.
`max_position`	No	Only consider rows at or above this position.
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description is free to add conceptual depth. It explains that the snippet, not ranking, is the problem, and defines expected_ctr as the position-based benchmark, which is valuable beyond the structured annotations.

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 no filler. The opening sentence states the core concept, the second adds strategic value, and the third defines the key benchmark term.

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?

Given rich parameter schemas, safety annotations, and an output schema, the description provides enough conceptual context for an agent to understand what the tool offers. The only clear gap is explicit routing among sibling tools, which is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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 92%, so the schema itself documents nearly every parameter. The description only adds context for the expected_ctr field, which is an output concept rather than a parameter, so it does not materially enhance parameter understanding.

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 Search Console rows that rank well but earn fewer clicks than their position implies, which defines the CTR-gap analysis concept. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'find', but the resource and analytical angle are unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'cheapest fixes available' implies a prioritization use case, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool instead of siblings such as gsc_quick_wins or gsc_query. This is implied context rather than actionable routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server