Google Search Console by Get MCP Ads

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gsc plan large site sampling

gsc_plan_large_site_sampling

Read-onlyIdempotent

Builds a read-only URL Inspection sampling plan for large sites by combining sitemap risk signals with Search Analytics page performance to prioritize inspection candidates.

Instructions

Build a read-only URL Inspection sampling plan for large sites from sitemap risk signals and Search Analytics page performance.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteUrl`	No	Search Console property URL, e.g. https://example.com/ or sc-domain:example.com. Uses GSC_SITE_URL when omitted.
`dateRange`	No	Explicit reporting start and end dates in YYYY-MM-DD format.
`pageLimit`	No	Maximum number of pages considered for the sampling plan.
`datePreset`	No	Named reporting period. Use the custom date range when you need exact start and end dates.	last28days
`objectives`	No	Analysis goals that determine the recommended large-site sampling strategy.
`searchType`	No	Search surface to report, such as web, image, video, news or Discover. Availability depends on the property.	web
`staleSitemapDays`	No	Number of days after which a sitemap's last download is considered stale.
`maxInspectionUrls`	No	Maximum URL Inspection candidates included in the plan; inspection calls consume provider quota.
`minImpressionsForLowCtr`	No	Minimum impressions before a page is considered for low-CTR analysis.

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 / minImpressionsForLowCtr / 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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'read-only' largely restates structured data. The description does add the useful note that the plan is derived from sitemap risk plus Search Analytics performance, but skips quota/cost context (inspection calls consume provider quota) that the schema buries in one parameter.

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, and the key qualifier ('read-only ... sampling plan') appears immediately. Slightly wasteful in repeating the read-only trait already carried by annotations.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to frame the tool's role, which it does. The remaining gap is that it doesn't clarify the plan's outcome or how objectives shape the recommendation, but the output schema can carry that.

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 one of the 9 parameters is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only loosely gestures at parameters by naming 'sitemap risk signals' and 'page performance', adding little beyond the schema's own objectives and staleSitemapDays docs.

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 and resource: 'build' a 'read-only URL Inspection sampling plan for large sites', and names the two input signal families (sitemap risk, Search Analytics performance). It stops short of explicitly distinguishing it from the inspection-execution siblings (gsc_inspect_url / gsc_bulk_inspect_urls), so an agent must infer that this only plans rather than inspects.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied by 'for large sites' and by the input signal names, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as gsc_bulk_inspect_urls for actually running inspections. The planning-vs-execution boundary is left to inference.

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