gsc_queriesThe user's real ranking keywords with position, clicks and CTR — use when deciding what to write or which page to improve, e.g. finding queries at position 5-20 that are one push from page one. Free; own data from their connected Search Console. After you edit a page, this is how you verify it moved.
| 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 and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the data source (own Search Console) and cost (free) but does not elaborate on pagination, response format, or other behavior. With annotations present, this level of additional context is adequate but not deep.
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 concise, front-loaded with the core value proposition, and every sentence earns its place. It covers purpose, use cases, and data origin without unnecessary fluff. Slightly less structured than ideal but still efficient.
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?
With only one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what data is returned (position, clicks, CTR) and when to use it. It could mention that data range is limited to 28/90 days, but that's in the schema. Overall, well-suited for the tool's simplicity.
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 schema already documents the single parameter 'range_days' with values 28 (default) or 90. The description does not mention the parameter at all, but since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies. No additional meaning is added by the description.
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 the tool's function: accessing the user's real ranking keywords with position, clicks, and CTR. It gives a concrete example of use (finding queries at position 5-20) which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like gsc_overview or gsc_pages.
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?
It provides explicit use cases ('use when deciding what to write or which page to improve') and even a verification workflow ('After you edit a page, this is how you verify it moved'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is clear and context-rich.
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.