SEO Analytics MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description mentions 'Get top pages' but doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it's cached or real-time, or any rate limits. It also doesn't describe the output format or pagination behavior. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence: 'Get top pages by clicks, impressions, sessions, and conversions.' Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and metrics. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no space on redundant information. This is an excellent example of efficiency in description writing.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is incomplete. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should address parameter usage, behavioral context, and differentiation from siblings. The description covers the basic purpose well but misses parameter explanations, usage guidelines, and behavioral transparency needed for a tool of this complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. The description mentions 'top pages' which loosely relates to 'top_n' and 'max_rows', and implies date filtering through 'snapshot', but doesn't explain the 6 parameters: 'site_url', 'property_id', 'start_date', 'end_date', 'top_n', and 'max_rows'. It provides no guidance on parameter formats, defaults, or relationships, failing to add meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get top pages by clicks, impressions, sessions, and conversions.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('top pages'), and metrics involved. It distinguishes from siblings like 'analytics_trend_report' or 'gsc_top_pages' by focusing on multiple engagement metrics rather than trends or search-specific data. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the analytics platform or data source, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'analytics_trend_report' (for trends), 'gsc_top_pages' (for search data), and 'ga4_landing_pages' (for GA4-specific data), there's no indication of which tool is appropriate for different scenarios. It lacks context about prerequisites, data sources, or comparison to other tools in the server.

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