Google Search Console MCP + Bing Webmaster Tools

Inspect a URL in Google Search Console

inspect_url_in_google

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect URL in Google: Search Console's URL inspection for one page: whether it is indexed, coverage state, robots.txt and fetch status, and last crawl time. Google allows 2,000 inspections a day per property. Free.

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": "inspect_url_in_google"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Page URL inside a connected Search Console property.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`indexed`	Yes	True when Google reports the URL as indexed (verdict PASS).
`verdict`	Yes
`nextStep`	No	Optional suggestion for the user's next step. Mention it once when it helps; never open it or act on it automatically.
`property`	Yes
`coverageState`	Yes
`indexingState`	Yes
`lastCrawlTime`	Yes
`pageFetchState`	Yes
`robotsTxtState`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / nextStep

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Optional suggestion for the user's next step. Mention it once when it helps; never open it or act on it automatically.",
+  "properties": {
+    "label": {
+      "description": "Short suggestion to show the user.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "description": "Page in the user's CrakSEO account.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "label",
+    "url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new operational context: the 2,000-per-day-per-property quota and that the call is free, which an agent needs for planning. It does not explain what happens when the URL is outside the property or when quota is exhausted.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two compact sentences: the capability and its return fields first, then the quota constraint. No filler, no repetition of the title, every clause carries information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description adds the quota constraint that structured fields lack. Slight gap: no mention of what happens on a URL outside the connected property or on quota exhaustion, which matters for an open-world tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and there is a single required parameter whose constraints (uri format, maxLength, must be inside a connected property) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description's mention of 'one page' adds nothing beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Inspect URL ... Google Search Console's URL inspection for one page') and enumerates exactly what is returned: index status, coverage state, robots.txt and fetch status, last crawl time. This cleanly separates it from the Bing-oriented siblings and from the performance/sitemap tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied via the daily quota note ('2,000 inspections a day per property'), which hints at a limited, per-page diagnostic use. It never states when to prefer this over get_search_console_performance or list_sitemaps, and gives no prerequisites such as needing a connected property beyond what the schema already says.

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

All Google Search Console MCP + Bing Webmaster Tools tools Inspect

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

Need Help?