Retrieve top-performing pages for a Google Search Console property over a specified date range to identify which pages drive search traffic and clicks.
Get top page rows for a property over a date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| filters | No | ||
| end_date | Yes | ||
| site_url | No | ||
| row_limit | No | ||
| start_row | 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 this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world operation, so the description's safety burden is low. However, it adds almost no behavioral context: it does not explain what "top" means, how rows are ordered, how pagination works, or what data_state and search_type affect.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity is efficient, though it also reflects under-specification rather than rich concision.
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?
This is a moderately complex reporting tool with nine parameters, pagination controls, filters, and multiple scope-related options. The output schema and annotations help, but the description omits critical selection and interpretation details an agent would need to invoke it correctly.
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 nine parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It vaguely implies a property and date range but does not clarify account versus site_url, filters format, row_limit/start_row pagination, data_state, or search_type.
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 top page rows") and scope ("for a property over a date range"). It is clear enough to identify the tool, but it does not distinguish it from siblings such as get_top_queries or get_dimension_breakdown.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention get_top_queries, get_dimension_breakdown, or any conditions under which top pages should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.