Skip to main content
Glama
arturseo-geo

mcp-gsc-advanced

by arturseo-geo
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct function: detect_cannibalization finds competing pages, page_queries lists queries for a page, rank_changes compares period positions. No overlap in purpose.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    All names use snake_case with two tokens, but detect_cannibalization is verb_noun while page_queries and rank_changes are noun_verb. Still clear and predictable.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is reasonable for an advanced GSC server focused on keyword analysis. It covers core needs without being too sparse or cluttered.

    Completeness4/5

    The set covers key SEO analysis tasks (cannibalization, page queries, rank changes). Minor gaps like aggregate search analytics or filtering are acceptable given the specialized scope.

  • Average 3.5/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states it compares periods and finds significant changes, but does not explain how periods are defined, whether the operation is read-only, or any impacts. The description is too minimal to convey important behavioral traits.

    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 extremely concise at two short sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and then details the result. Every word earns its place.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the return format (e.g., list of queries with change metrics) and how the two periods are determined. The current description only covers the basic purpose, leaving significant gaps for a tool with 2 optional parameters.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool compares 'two periods' (implying the 'days' parameter defines the length of each period or the lookback window), which goes beyond the schema's description of 'days' as 'period length'. This contextualizes the parameter meaning.

    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 states the tool compares position changes between two periods and finds queries that gained or lost positions. The verb 'compare' and resources 'position changes' and 'queries' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'detect_cannibalization' and 'page_queries' by focusing on rank shifts over time, though no explicit differentiation is given.

    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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (siblings). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from purpose alone.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It describes the tool as a read-like analysis (finds, shows, recommends), but does not explicitly state it is read-only or has no side effects. The description adds some behavioral context (output types) but falls short of complete transparency for a tool that likely only reads data.

    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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and lists key outputs efficiently. Every word adds value.

    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 no output schema, the description compensates by outlining the output elements: impressions split, severity levels, and a recommendation. However, it does not specify the exact structure or whether the output is a list of items. Still, it provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

    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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description does not add any additional meaning or usage notes for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

    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 clearly states the specific function: detecting keyword cannibalization. It explains what the tool does: identifies queries where multiple pages compete, and details the outputs (impressions split, severity levels, recommendation). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like page_queries and rank_changes.

    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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (page_queries, rank_changes). While the name and description imply it's for detecting cannibalization, there is no direct comparison or exclusion of alternatives. This leaves the agent without clear direction on selection.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    The description lacks explicit disclosure of behavioral traits such as being read-only or any side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden but does not state that the operation is non-destructive. It could be improved by clarifying that no data is modified.

    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 a single, focused sentence that delivers the core purpose first and then provides supporting details. No unnecessary words or repetition.

    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 the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the return data (clicks, CTR, position) and ordering (by impressions). However, it does not specify that results are sorted descending or if there are any limits. Most context is provided for this type of search analytics tool.

    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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds output field details (clicks, CTR, position) but does not add new information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

    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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and specifies the resource 'GSC queries driving traffic to a specific page'. It lists the output fields (clicks, CTR, position) and mentions sorting by impressions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like detect_cannibalization and rank_changes, which have different focuses.

    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?

    Usage is implied for analyzing queries for a specific page, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion conditions or when-not-to scenarios are provided.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-gsc-advanced MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-gsc-advanced MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/arturseo-geo/mcp-gsc-advanced'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server