Google Search Console Audit MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gsc_traffic_drops

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detects pages with click drops versus a baseline and explains whether the cause is ranking loss, falling demand, collapsed CTR, or a disappeared page.

Instructions

Pages that lost clicks against the baseline, each with a likely cause.

diagnosis separates a ranking loss from falling demand, a collapsed CTR and a page that disappeared: the four need different fixes, and the raw numbers for both periods are in the row so the call can be checked.

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.
`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.
`min_drop_pct`	No	Minimum click loss, in percent.
`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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the baseline is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior: it explains that each row includes a diagnosis and raw numbers for both periods, making the results auditable. This is useful context beyond the annotations, with no contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The second paragraph adds genuinely useful diagnostic context without filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 10 parameters, an output schema, and detailed annotations, the description provides useful interpretive context but leaves gaps. It does not define what 'baseline' means, how thresholds are calculated, or how this tool relates to the many sibling diagnostics. Adequate, but not fully complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 90%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does contextualize the output by mentioning 'baseline' and 'both periods.' This is adequate given the schema already carries most of the burden.

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 output as pages that lost clicks against a baseline, each with a likely cause. It also adds diagnostic categories, making the purpose tangible. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'identifies' and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools by name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as gsc_content_decay or gsc_ctr_gaps. The statement that the four diagnoses need different fixes is interpretive guidance for acting on results, not guidance for tool selection.

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

Deploy Server