compare_performance

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze search performance changes between two time periods to identify queries or pages gaining or losing traffic in Google Search Console.

Instructions

Compare search performance between two time periods. Shows which queries/pages gained or lost traffic.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account`	No	Account alias to use (e.g., "default", "personal"). If omitted and only one account exists, it is used automatically.
`siteUrl`	Yes	The site URL
`currentStartDate`	Yes	Current period start date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`currentEndDate`	Yes	Current period end date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`previousStartDate`	Yes	Previous period start date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`previousEndDate`	Yes	Previous period end date (YYYY-MM-DD)
`dimension`	No	Compare by "query" or "page" (default: query)
`limit`	No	Number of results to return (default: 50)

Tool Definition Quality

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable behavioral context that the output specifically identifies queries/pages that gained or lost traffic, hinting at the comparative analysis nature beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Two tightly constructed sentences with zero redundancy. First sentence establishes the core operation; second sentence describes the specific output value (gainers/losers). Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequate for a read-only analytics tool with comprehensive schema coverage, though no output schema exists. The description hints at return content (gained/lost traffic) but doesn't describe return structure, format, or error conditions for invalid date ranges.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description mentions 'queries/pages' which maps to the dimension parameter, and 'two time periods' which maps to the date ranges, but doesn't add syntax details beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool compares search performance between two time periods (specific verb + scope). It implicitly distinguishes from single-period siblings like get_top_pages by emphasizing the comparative nature, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar analytics tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_keyword_trend or analyze_brand_queries. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., valid date ranges, account requirements) or when comparisons are most valuable.

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

Install Server

google-search-console-mcp