Retrieve aggregate search performance metrics for a Google Search Console property across a chosen date range, enabling site-level reporting and trend analysis.
Get aggregate performance metrics for a property over a date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| end_date | Yes | ||
| site_url | No | ||
| data_state | No | ||
| start_date | Yes | ||
| search_type | No | web |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Input schema / properties / accountAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Account"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint with destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered and the bar is lower. The description adds nothing beyond restating the aggregate-over-date-range idea: no mention of whether metrics are totals versus averages, data freshness, or result-size limits.
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 or redundancy. It is efficient but under-specified rather than over-long, so the only structural issue is missing content, not wasted content.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the definition is otherwise thin for a six-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and five plausible sibling alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text how search_type or data_state change results or how the summary differs from query_performance.
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 0% across six parameters, so the description must compensate and it largely does not. Only the date-range intent of start_date/end_date is implied; account, site_url, data_state, and especially search_type (defaulting to 'web') carry no meaning anywhere.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get aggregate performance metrics') scoped by date range and property, which is clear enough to act on. However, it never distinguishes itself from siblings such as query_performance or get_dimension_breakdown, so an agent could reasonably pick the wrong one for a summary-only request.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With six sibling tools covering performance querying, top queries/pages, and dimension breakdowns, the description should say this returns totals-only and route users elsewhere for per-item rows, but it does not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.