Sam GSC MCP

skill_read

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the complete step-by-step playbook for a specified SEO skill, giving AI assistants the exact workflow to follow. Use it to retrieve actionable instructions by skill ID.

Instructions

Return the full step-by-step playbook for one skill.

Args: skill_id: Skill id from skills_list, e.g. "seo-weekly-report" or "keyword-cannibalization"

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "skill_id": "<skill_id>"
    },
    "name": "skill_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`skill_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content context that the tool returns the "full step-by-step playbook," but says nothing further about response detail, skill availability, or failure behavior when an id is unknown.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the argument note is short, with only minor docstring boilerplate ("Args:") adding a little noise. Nothing is bloated or redundant.

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 one required parameter, an existing output schema, and rich read-only annotations, the description covers the essentials an agent needs to invoke it. It would be slightly stronger with a note on where skill ids come from beyond the examples, but the remaining gap is small.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it does by identifying skill_id as a skill id sourced from skills_list and giving two concrete examples. That is meaningful compensation for a single-parameter tool, though it does not describe format constraints beyond the examples.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ("Return the full step-by-step playbook") and scopes it to "one skill," which is enough to separate it from skills_list. Sibling differentiation is implied via the skill_id provenance rather than stated outright for the rest of the toolset, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description makes the lookup flow explicit: the agent learns to get ids from skills_list and then call this tool. There are no stated exclusions or alternatives beyond that, so it is a solid 4 rather than a 5.

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