maestro_explain_search_metricsExplains clicks, impressions, CTR, and average position, and clarifies why search metrics from different engines must not be combined naively.
Explain clicks, impressions, CTR, and average position, including why metrics from different engines should not be combined naively. No account access or source data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: 'No account access or source data' tells the agent this is self-contained reference knowledge, not a query, so it doesn't need credentials or a connected source to succeed.
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: subject, scope, and the key caveat. Nothing is wasted and no reader has to scan for the point.
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?
For a parameterless, read-only explainer with no output schema, the definition covers what the agent needs in order to know why and how to call it. A brief hint about when to prefer it over its sibling computation tools would make it fully complete.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description's note that no account access or source data is needed reinforces the parameterless nature.
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?
States a specific verb ('Explain') and the exact resources named (clicks, impressions, CTR, average position), plus the scope of the explanation (why metrics across engines shouldn't be naively combined). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like maestro_calculate_ctr and maestro_compare_periods, which compute or compare rather than define.
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?
Usage is only implied: the definitional framing tells an agent to reach for this when it needs definitions or caveats rather than a computation. No explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., 'use maestro_calculate_ctr for numeric results') are given, leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.