Google Search Console by Get MCP Ads

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gsc analyze search appearance trends

gsc_analyze_search_appearance_trends

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze rich-result and structured data trends using the Search Console searchAppearance dimension. Compare periods to track clicks, impressions and position shifts by appearance type.

Instructions

Analyze structured data and rich-result trend signals via the Search Analytics searchAppearance dimension when GSC exposes it.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topN`	No	Maximum number of highest-ranked results to return.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of returned items or rows. The declared bounds and default apply; use pagination for additional results.
`sortBy`	No	Metric or dimension used to rank the returned results.	impressionsDelta
`siteUrl`	No	Search Console property URL, e.g. https://example.com/ or sc-domain:example.com. Uses GSC_SITE_URL when omitted.
`datePreset`	No	Named reporting period. Use the custom date range when you need exact start and end dates.	last28days
`searchType`	No	Search surface to report, such as web, image, video, news or Discover. Availability depends on the property.	web
`includePages`	No	When true, groups by searchAppearance + page for page-level rich result trends.
`minImpressions`	No	Minimum reported impressions required for a row to enter the analysis.
`currentDateRange`	No	Current period. Defaults to datePreset.
`previousDateRange`	No	Previous period. Defaults to the immediately preceding period with the same length.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Original tool result: parsed JSON when the text is JSON, otherwise the text or multiple MCP content blocks. Provider fields depend on the selected query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed8 schema fields changedv2.1.1Oct 30, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedInput schema / properties / currentDateRange / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
addedInput schema / properties / minImpressions / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
removedInput schema / properties / previousDateRange / $ref
```
Removed value: -"#/properties/currentDateRange"
```

addedInput schema / properties / previousDateRange / properties

Added value: +{
+  "endDate": {
+    "description": "End date YYYY-MM-DD",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "startDate": {
+    "description": "Start date YYYY-MM-DD",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / properties / previousDateRange / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "startDate",
+  "endDate"
+]
```
addedInput schema / properties / previousDateRange / type
```
Added value: +"object"
```

changedOutput schema / properties / result / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "additionalProperties": true,
-    "properties": {},
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  {
-    "items": {},
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "boolean"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "properties": {},
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "items": {},
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedv2.0.1Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds one useful behavioral fact: results depend on the property exposing the searchAppearance dimension, so calls may yield empty or partial data. It says nothing about how the trend comparison is computed, pagination behavior, or error handling, but with annotations present a 3 is fair.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's 10-parameter comparison semantics.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema and fully documented parameters reduce the burden, and the description covers purpose and an availability caveat. However, the core mechanic of this tool – comparing currentDateRange against previousDateRange to derive trend deltas – is never mentioned, which is a meaningful omission for a 'trends' tool even if inferable from the schema.

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 description coverage is 100% across all 10 parameters, including enums, defaults, and nested date ranges, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond referencing the searchAppearance dimension (which is not itself a parameter and connects loosely to includePages). Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Analyze) and resource (structured data / rich-result trend signals) and names the underlying dimension (searchAppearance) that distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_query_search_analytics or gsc_compare_search_types. It does not explicitly say how it differs from those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The only conditional statement is 'when GSC exposes it,' which is an availability caveat rather than guidance on when to choose this tool over gsc_query_search_analytics, gsc_compare_search_types, or gsc_find_losses_gains. No when-not-use or alternative routing is provided.

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