Finds Google Search Console queries with high impressions and low CTR that are close to page-one rankings, helping prioritize SEO content and title/meta improvements.
Search Console insight: striking_distance
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds only that this is an 'insight' (an analysis rather than a raw listing), but discloses nothing about thresholds, ranking, aggregation, or output shape.
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?
It is short, but not because it is efficient — it is under-specified. The one phrase present ('Search Console insight') is the only informative content and is not front-loaded with any actionable detail.
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 analytical tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description provides nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret its results. It is completely inadequate for the tool's complexity.
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% across six parameters, and the description does not mention any of them. The meanings of maxCtr (default 0.02), minImpressions (default 100), and the interplay of days vs startDate/endDate are left entirely unexplained, which is a critical gap given the filtering logic defines the tool's output.
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 is essentially the tool name restated with the domain prefix 'Search Console insight'. It never explains what a 'striking_distance' insight computes (implied: queries with high impressions and low CTR in near-ranking positions), so the agent must guess the semantics of the jargon term.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing relative to siblings such as low_ctr, cannibalization, or movers, which appear to be similar insight tools. Nothing indicates how this differs from low_ctr in particular.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.