GSC SEO MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

generate_markdown_report

Create a Markdown SEO performance report for any Google Search Console property, with customizable date range and metrics. Saves the report to your configured directory.

Instructions

Generate a Markdown SEO performance report and save it to GSC_REPORT_DIR.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "generate_markdown_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteUrl`	No	Google Search Console property URL, e.g. sc-domain:example.com or https://www.example.com/.
`startDate`	No	Start date in YYYY-MM-DD. If omitted, days is used.
`endDate`	No	End date in YYYY-MM-DD. If omitted, days is used.
`days`	No	Lookback window when startDate/endDate are omitted.
`title`	No		Google Search Console SEO Report
`includeRows`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions saving to GSC_REPORT_DIR but does not explain side effects like overwriting behavior, directory creation, or file naming. The mutation aspect (file write) is implied but not detailed.

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 a single, clear sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded with key actions, though it could be expanded slightly without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the absence of output schema and the complexity of a report generation tool, the description lacks critical details such as what data the report contains, how parameters affect output, and what the return value is. The agent may need to rely on tool name and schema alone.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 action (generate and save) and the output format (Markdown SEO performance report), distinguishing it from sibling tools that may only retrieve data or display overviews. However, it does not specify the content of the report.

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 tool versus alternatives like search_analytics or top_pages. There is no indication of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name alone.

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