find_keyword_opportunities

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify search queries with high visibility but low click-through rates to prioritize content optimization and improve organic traffic performance.

Instructions

Find keyword optimization opportunities - queries with high impressions but low CTR that could be improved.

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 to analyze
`startDate`	Yes	Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`endDate`	Yes	End date in YYYY-MM-DD format
`minImpressions`	No	Minimum impressions to consider (default: 100)
`maxCtr`	No	Maximum CTR to consider as opportunity (default: 0.03 = 3%)
`maxPosition`	No	Maximum position to consider (default: 20)

Tool Definition Quality

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), allowing the description to focus on business logic. It successfully discloses the behavioral definition of 'opportunity' (high impressions + low CTR threshold) which isn't evident from the annotations alone.

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?

Single sentence with zero redundancy. The definition is front-loaded and every word earns its place by conveying both the action and the specific filtering logic.

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?

Given the 100% schema coverage and read-only nature, the description adequately explains the core business logic. However, without an output schema, it could briefly mention what data is returned (e.g., list of queries with metrics) to be fully complete.

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 adequately documents all 7 parameters. The description conceptually maps to minImpressions and maxCtr by mentioning 'high impressions' and 'low CTR,' but does not add syntax, format details, or examples beyond the schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and clearly defines both the resource (keyword optimization opportunities) and the specific criteria used to identify them (queries with high impressions but low CTR). This distinguishes it from generic analytics siblings like query_search_analytics.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool (when seeking to optimize CTR for underperforming high-impression queries) but lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use it or how it differs from siblings like analyze_brand_queries or get_keyword_trend.

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