gsc_pagesThe user's pages ranked by search performance, including high-impression low-CTR pages whose titles/descriptions are underselling — fix those files right in this editor. Free; own data from their connected Search Console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range_days | No | 28 (default) or 90 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is safe. The description adds context about data source (connected Search Console) and cost (free), and mentions the typical use case (fixing underselling pages). It does not contradict annotations and enriches understanding slightly. However, it doesn't reveal any hidden side effects or operational details beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence adds context about the use case (fixing titles/descriptions) and ownership/free aspect, but is not redundant. Slightly wordy with 'right in this editor' but overall compact.
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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the primary purpose and the key value proposition (high-impression low-CTR pages). It does not explain return format, but that is not critical for this complexity level.
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 single parameter (range_days) is fully described in the schema with default and values. The description adds no additional meaning or usage details for the parameter. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100% and description does not compensate.
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?
Clearly states it lists the user's pages ranked by search performance, and specifically calls out high-impression low-CTR pages for optimization. This distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_queries (queries) and gsc_overview (aggregate), and the verb 'ranked' + resource 'pages' is specific.
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?
The description implies usage for identifying and fixing underperforming pages, but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over siblings like gsc_overview or gsc_queries. No when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: backlink_directories vs research_backlinks differ (directories vs actual backlinks), gsc_* tools cover different views of own data (overview/pages/queries), research_* tools each address a separate question (competitors, domain overview, AI mentions, backlinks), and the trace/audit/report lifecycle tools have clear roles (start, poll, read, unlock). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
There is a clear pattern: verb_noun for actions (get_trace, read_report, start_trace, unlock_report, search_reports), research_* prefix for external lookups, gsc_* prefix for own Search Console data, and site_audit_* for audits. Minor inconsistency: backlink_directories doesn't follow the verb_noun style (no verb), but overall the naming is predictable and grouped logically.
At 15 tools, this is at the upper end of the well-scoped range (3-15). Each tool serves a distinct function within the SEO/growth analysis domain, so the count feels justified rather than bloated. However, it's slightly heavy, which is why it misses a 5.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of growth reports (search, read, start trace, poll, unlock), ownsite GSC data (overview, pages, queries), competitor research (domain, backlinks, brand, competitors), and site audits (start/get). Minor gaps include no way to delete or manage reports beyond reading, and no direct keyword research beyond GSC queries, but the core workflows are complete.