Google Search Console by Get MCP Ads

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gsc detect cannibalization

gsc_detect_cannibalization

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect queries where multiple pages compete for clicks and impressions, revealing cannibalization so you can consolidate or differentiate competing pages.

Instructions

Detect queries where multiple pages compete for clicks/impressions in Search Analytics query-page rows.

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.
`siteUrl`	No	Search Console property URL, e.g. https://example.com/ or sc-domain:example.com. Uses GSC_SITE_URL when omitted.
`minPages`	No	Minimum distinct pages ranking for a query before it is considered a cannibalization candidate.
`dateRange`	No	Explicit reporting start and end dates in YYYY-MM-DD format.
`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
`minImpressions`	No	Minimum reported impressions required for a row to enter the analysis.
`maxTopPageClickShare`	No	Only flag queries where the top page owns less than or equal to this click share.

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.

Changed4 schema fields changedv2.1.1Oct 30, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedInput schema / properties / dateRange / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
addedInput schema / properties / minImpressions / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```

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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's only remaining burden is behavioral detail it does not supply — no mention of how candidates are ranked, what the result ordering is, whether low-impression queries are dropped, or any data-volume caveats. It essentially restates the purpose and stops.

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 zero filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a nine-parameter analytical tool.

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 exists and all nine parameters are documented, so the essentials are covered. For a multi-parameter heuristic analysis tool, however, the description leaves the detection logic and result semantics entirely to the schema, which is the minimum viable level.

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%, so every parameter including minPages, minImpressions and maxTopPageClickShare is fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no interpretation of thresholds or how they interact (e.g. how minPages and maxTopPageClickShare jointly define a candidate).

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?

Names a specific verb ('detect') and a precise analytical concept ('queries where multiple pages compete for clicks/impressions'), which is unmistakably keyword cannibalization analysis rather than a raw query dump. It is distinguishable from gsc_query_search_analytics in substance, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. The agent must infer from the one-sentence purpose that this is the analysis tool versus gsc_query_search_analytics or gsc_cluster_queries, with no stated conditions or prerequisites.

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