Lists every configured property with its covering key and live access status for Search Console and GA4, so you can verify credentials before reading metrics.
Every configured site, which key covers it, and whether Search Console and GA4 access works at the moment of the call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description usefully adds that the access check is a live, point-in-time probe made during the call — meaningful context for an agent diagnosing auth failures. It does not describe the response shape, but for a read-only inventory tool this is a modest omission.
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 that states scope, per-site credential mapping, and access status with zero filler. Every clause carries information.
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?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema inventory tool this covers what an agent needs: what is returned and that access status is checked live. It could go one step further by hinting at the return structure (e.g. a list with key names and boolean access flags).
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed to enumerate all sites. It adds nothing more because there is nothing more to add.
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 the resource concretely (every configured site) and specifies the payload: key coverage per site plus live Search Console/GA4 access status. That clearly separates it from siblings like traffic or search_queries, though the verb is implicit (enumerate/list) and no sibling is named explicitly.
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 only implied: the phrase 'at the moment of the call' suggests a discovery/preflight role (find sites, check credential health before pulling data), but the description never states when to prefer it or what to do when access fails. No alternatives are referenced.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.