Keytomic

Get indexing status

get_indexing_status

Read-only

Returns the saved indexing status of each post that Keytomic published for the site, on Google and on Bing, with one combined status: indexed (Google indexes it), needs_attention (Google gives an error or the last Bing submit failed), pending (an engine has the URL and no engine gives a problem), or not_checked (no engine has data). The summary gives the published, indexed and pending numbers of the Indexing page (the indexed and pending numbers are null without Google data), the count of each engine status and each combined status, the connection of each engine and the oldest check. Bing gives crawl dates only, so a Bing status is crawled or not_indexed, never indexed. It reads only what Keytomic saved and makes no Google or Bing call: Refresh on the Indexing page updates it, and inspect_urls checks URLs live. Pass url or topicId to read one post with its saved Google diagnostic report. An engine whose data this connection may not read is scope_missing.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "get_indexing_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No	Read one post by its published URL.
`page`	No	Page of 50 posts. Use nextPage from the result.
`filter`	No	Only the posts of this combined status.	all
`topicId`	No	Read one post by its calendar topic, from list_calendar_topics.
`projectId`	Yes	Site to act on, from list_sites. Its connected Search Console property and Bing Webmaster site are used.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint false, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the tool never contacts Google or Bing, Bing data only gives crawl dates so a Bing status is never 'indexed', the summary's indexed and pending numbers are null without Google data, and out-of-scope data surfaces as 'scope_missing'. These details materially change how an agent interprets the results.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence carries information, including the status definitions and the scope caveat. The second sentence is lengthy and chains several clauses, but no sentence is filler.

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?

The description covers return shape, status semantics, the summary contents and the reasons for null values, engine-specific limitations, and the read-only and offline nature of the tool. Together with the fully described five-parameter schema, there is nothing important an agent would need to infer before calling it.

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; the description earns an extra point by explaining that url or topicId returns one post with its saved Google diagnostic report, which is a behavioral effect the schema alone does not convey. It could say a little more about how filter interacts with the summary, but otherwise the parameters are fully understandable.

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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the saved indexing status of each post that Keytomic published for the site, on Google and on Bing.' It also defines the four combined status values, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns and can distinguish it from sibling tools that publish content or submit URLs.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool and how it relates to its alternatives: 'It reads only what Keytomic saved and makes no Google or Bing call: Refresh on the Indexing page updates it, and inspect_urls checks URLs live.' It also explains how to narrow to a single post using url or topicId, which makes the choice straightforward.

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

All Keytomic 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?