Find pages or queries with low click-through rates in Google Search Console, filtering by impressions and CTR thresholds to prioritize SEO improvements.
Search Console insight: low_ctr
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| site | Yes | ||
| maxCtr | No | ||
| endDate | No | ||
| startDate | No | ||
| minImpressions | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations establish a read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, and the description does not conflict with them. Beyond naming Search Console, however, it adds no behavioral context about data scope, freshness, request limitations, or how results are selected.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The text is short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. "Search Console insight" supplies minimal context and "low_ctr" merely repeats the identifier instead of providing a front-loaded operational summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a six-parameter external analytics tool with no parameter descriptions and no output schema, a bare label is inadequate for confident selection and invocation. The definition lacks the returned resource or metrics, filtering and date behavior, and the tool's relationship to sibling insights.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description explains none of site, days, maxCtr, startDate, endDate, or minImpressions. It does not even connect maxCtr and minImpressions to the low-CTR insight or clarify date-window behavior, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description adds only the broad Search Console domain and the label "insight" while repeating "low_ctr". It does not state what the tool searches or returns, nor distinguish it from search_analytics, striking_distance, cannibalization, or movers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
An agent can infer a general interest in low click-through rate from the name, but the description gives no explicit use case or selection criteria. It provides no when-not guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the sibling analytics tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.