SEO Analytics MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool finds 'high-impression query/page pairs' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what data source it queries (e.g., Google Analytics, Search Console), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'weak' means quantitatively. The description is too vague for a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear focus, though the brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It states the goal but lacks details on inputs, behavior, or output interpretation. The output schema existence means return values might be documented elsewhere, but the description doesn't provide enough context for effective use without heavy reliance on external documentation or schema inspection.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., what 'site_url' or 'property_id' refer to, date formats, how 'min_impressions' or 'top_n' relate to 'high-impression', or what 'max_rows' controls). The description only hints at criteria ('high-impression', 'weak CTR', 'weak on-page outcomes') without mapping them to parameters, leaving significant gaps.

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: 'Find high-impression query/page pairs with weak CTR and weak on-page outcomes.' It specifies the action (find), resource (query/page pairs), and criteria (high impressions, weak CTR, weak on-page outcomes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gsc_query_page_pairs' or 'gsc_search_analytics_raw', which appear related.

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. It doesn't mention any of the sibling tools (like 'gsc_query_page_pairs' or 'analytics_trend_report') or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred. The context is implied (finding opportunities based on specific metrics) but lacks explicit usage boundaries or prerequisites.

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