GSC Magic

Inspect many URLs (Google)

gsc_inspect_urls_batch

Read-only

Inspect up to 500 URLs sequentially (throttled to stay under 600/min). Returns a compact status per URL and stops cleanly when the daily quota is hit.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "gsc_inspect_urls_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	Search Console property: exact (sc-domain:example.com, https://example.com/) or just a domain/URL, matched automatically.
`urls`	Yes
`language_code`	No		en-US

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: sequential processing, a 600/min throttle, and clean termination on daily quota exhaustion. That quota-stop behavior is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express. It omits per-URL failure handling, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the batch scope and then the throttling and quota behavior. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description must characterize returns, and 'a compact status per URL' is too vague to tell an agent what fields or verdicts to expect. Quota and throttling are well covered, but the shape of the result and partial-failure semantics are left open.

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 only 33%: 'site' is documented, but 'urls' and 'language_code' carry no schema descriptions. The description restates the 500 cap (already in maxItems) and adds throttling context, but says nothing about what language_code affects or what a URL entry should look like.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Inspect ... URLs') plus the batch scope ('up to 500 URLs sequentially'), which implicitly separates it from the single-URL sibling gsc_inspect_url. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the routing.

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?

The batch size and sequential/throttled nature imply 'use this for many URLs, use gsc_inspect_url for one', but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is stated. The agent has to derive the alternative from the sibling list rather than the description.

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

All GSC Magic 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?