Identify your site's highest-traffic pages over a chosen period to focus SEO efforts. Input the site URL, lookback days, and page count to get actionable performance data.
Get the top performing pages for a site over a lookback window
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days to look back | |
| limit | No | Number of top pages to return | |
| site_url | No | The site URL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description alone must carry the behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only 'Get' action, but it does not define what 'top performing' means (metric, ordering), pagination, date boundaries, or return format. This is a significant gap for an un-annotated tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the core action is communicated immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with 3 optional params and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose, but leaves ambiguity around the ranking metric and expected response shape, so it is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents days, limit, and site_url clearly; the description adds no additional parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('top performing pages'), scope ('for a site'), and time window ('lookback window'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_top_queries (queries vs pages) and search_analytics.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the resource: an agent seeking top pages would choose this over get_top_queries. However, the description gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.