Sam GSC MCP

get_site_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get a GSC performance summary for a site over a chosen period (default 28 days) by search type, comparing to the previous period with % changes and daily data.

Instructions

Headline summary: this period vs the previous period of the same length, with % changes and daily data.

Args: site_url: Exact property (defaults to GSC_SITE_URL) period_days: Length of each period in days (default 28) search_type: web, image, video, news, discover, googleNews

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_site_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`site_url`	No
`period_days`	No
`search_type`	No	web

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations confirm read-only status, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the tool performs a comparison between 'this period vs the previous period of the same length'. This explains the logic of the output beyond simple data fetching.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The structure is highly effective, using a brief preamble followed by a clear, parsable list of Arguments. Every sentence serves to define the tool's identity or parameters.

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?

The description is comprehensive regarding the data it returns (headlines, % changes, daily data) and the controls available to the user. It is complete for a summary report, even if the output format is complex.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Given the 0% schema description coverage, the description is perfect. It defines the semantics for all three parameters: providing an exact property identifier, specifying the time window, and listing all valid 'search_type' options.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description provides a high-level summary of the tool's output ('Headline summary: this period vs the previous period...'), which clearly differentiates it from a raw data retrieval tool like 'get_search_analytics'. It defines the resource (site data) and the core function (comparative summary).

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?

The definition provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to alternatives. For example, it does not distinguish when a user should use this summary versus fetching detailed analytics via 'get_search_analytics' or 'get_site_details'.

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