Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SEO Data MCP

SEO Data MCP

by pabsamuel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

gsc_query

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query Google Search Console search performance by site and date range, with pagination via startRow and configurable dimensions.

Instructions

Read Search Console search performance. Paginate using startRow. Free tier.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "startDate": "<startDate>",
      "endDate": "<endDate>"
    },
    "name": "gsc_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
endDateYes
rowLimitNo
startRowNo
startDateYes
dimensionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds pagination behavior and a free-tier note, but it does not disclose auth requirements, quota behavior, or result structure.

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 description is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, its terseness is partly under-specification rather than pure efficiency, so it is not quite exemplary for a six-parameter tool.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a six-parameter query tool with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It covers pagination and free-tier context but leaves required fields, date semantics, dimensions, and return behavior unexplained.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across six parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only explains startRow as the pagination offset and says nothing about site, startDate, endDate, rowLimit, or dimensions, leaving most parameters semantically undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read Search Console search performance. It implicitly distinguishes itself from non-GSC siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate from gsc_inspect or bing_query_stats, so sibling routing is left partly to inference.

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 only usage guidance is pagination via startRow and a note about the free tier. It does not say when to use this tool instead of gsc_inspect, bing_query_stats, or other performance-related siblings, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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