Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

IndexMachine

by co.indexmachine
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Request indexing

request_indexing

Queues a Request indexing click for a URL of one of the user's sites, also one that is not a page of the site yet. The user's IndexMachine Chrome extension performs it in their own Search Console when it next checks in, within about 10 requests per site per day; the answer has the queue position and the ETA in eta_text, which is for the click and not for indexing. It previews first, and queues nothing for a page that is already indexed unless force is true, a re-index. A re-index, a URL that is not in the sitemap, or the site's last request of the day waits for the user's yes. A client on MCP protocol 2026-07-28 that supports elicitation gets a question to confirm, and the answer does not pass through the model. This remote server keeps no session, so a client on an earlier protocol version is not asked: the tool refuses first with a confirm token, and the call with that token stands for the user's yes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "request_indexing"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesA whole http or https URL of one of the user's sites
forceNoRequest a re-index of a page that is already indexed
confirmNoThe confirm token from this tool's refusal, once the user agreed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well past the annotations: the work is performed asynchronously by the user's Chrome extension on its next check-in, with a real rate limit of about 10 requests per site per day. It also discloses that eta_text estimates the click and not the indexing, that preview-first suppresses no-op queues, and that the stateless server forces a confirm-token refusal flow for older-protocol clients. That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, then layered: mechanics, rate limit, ETA caveat, preview/force rules, confirmation flow. Dense and mostly earned, though the single run-on paragraph of stacked clauses (re-index / non-sitemap / last-of-day) reads heavier than needed and could be split.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the async execution model, quota, the shape of the useful return value (queue position, eta_text), the no-op condition, and the two-path confirmation protocol. An agent can call it correctly and interpret the result without further information.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: force is characterized as a re-index that triggers a confirmation, and confirm is explained as the token from this tool's own refusal whose reuse 'stands for the user's yes'. That clarifies the awkward two-call protocol the schema alone does not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opening clause gives a specific verb and resource ('Queues a Request indexing click for a URL of one of the user's sites') and even extends scope to URLs that aren't pages of the site yet. It is clearly distinct from the list/get/cancel indexing siblings by the word 'queues', but it never names an alternative (submit_indexnow, check_url) so the differentiation is left implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives the operative conditions for calling: it previews first, queues nothing for an already-indexed page unless force is true, and re-indexes / non-sitemap URLs / last-request-of-the-day require the user's yes. What it lacks is an explicit routing statement against siblings (e.g. when to prefer submit_indexnow or check_url).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All IndexMachine toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources