Skip to main content
Glama
muhammeddilaver

seoclaude

by muhammeddilaver
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Page performance (Search Console + GA4)

page_performance
Read-only

Combine Search Console and GA4 page metrics to flag low CTR for position, weak engagement, or search clicks with no GA4 sessions.

Instructions

Joins Search Console (impressions, clicks, CTR, position) with GA4 (sessions, engagement, duration, key events) per page path, and flags pages with low CTR for their position, low engagement, or search clicks but no GA sessions (often a tracking gap).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topNo
endDateNoDefaults to the latest finalized day (~3 days ago)
siteUrlYesProperty exactly as listed by list_sites, e.g. "sc-domain:example.com" or "https://example.com/"
propertyYesGA4 property from ga_list_properties, e.g. "properties/123456789" or "123456789"
startDateNoDefaults to 28 days before endDate
organicOnlyNoCount only GA4 sessions from Organic Search
minImpressionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the flagging logic (low CTR for position, low engagement, tracking gap) beyond what annotations provide, though it omits auth needs and rate limits.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It packs the join, the sources, the scope, and the flagging behavior efficiently.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and a multi-source join, the description explains what is computed and flagged but does not describe the return shape (e.g., per-page rows with metrics and flag reasons), leaving an agent to infer the output structure.

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?

Schema description coverage is 71%, so most parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, making this a baseline adequate score for a tool with moderate schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('Joins') and resources (Search Console, GA4), scopes it to 'per page path', and adds the flagging behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from single-source siblings like search_analytics and ga_report.

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 the tool is for combined SC+GA4 page analysis but offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternatives. The context is inferable but not stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools