Retrieve top performing pages by clicks or impressions for a custom date range to focus SEO efforts on high-impact content.
Get top performing pages by clicks or impressions for the last N days.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The URL of the site | |
| days | No | Number of days to look back (default: 28) | |
| limit | No | Number of top pages to return (default: 10) | |
| sortBy | No | Sort by clicks or impressions (default: clicks) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only mentions that the tool returns top pages by clicks or impressions for N days. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it returns a sorted list, if there is pagination, or any side effects. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden but is minimal.
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 description is a single sentence, which is concise. However, it omits important details that could improve usability. It front-loads the core purpose but could be more complete without significantly increasing length.
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?
Given the moderate complexity (4 parameters, 1 enum) and absence of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not mention default values, sorting order, or the structure of the returned data, making it incomplete for an AI agent to reliably use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds contextual meaning ('top performing pages') but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema offers. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states that the tool retrieves top pages based on clicks or impressions over a specified time period. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'analytics_top_queries' (which focuses on queries) and 'analytics_trends' (which shows trends), though it does not explicitly differentiate from other page-analysis tools.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the extensive list of sibling tools (e.g., 'analytics_page_performance', 'analytics_organic_landing_pages'), the description lacks context on appropriate use cases or when to prefer this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.