inspect_urlInspect a URL in Google Search Console (indexing, crawl, robots.txt status). The URL must sit inside the project's connected Search Console property.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The full http or https URL to inspect | |
| projectId | Yes | The project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / url / descriptionPrevious value: -"The full URL to inspect"New value: +"The full http or https URL to inspect"Input schema / properties / url / formatAdded value: +"uri"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the connectivity prerequisite, which is genuinely useful operational context, but says nothing about quota consumption on the underlying GSC API or what happens when no property is connected.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the returned facets, with the constraint as a follow-up. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical could be tightened into the main clause.
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?
For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is inspected, the returned facets, and the eligibility constraint. The main remaining gap is failure behavior when the property is not connected, which is minor given the annotation coverage.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint the schema lacks: the URL must fall inside the connected property, which materially narrows what values are valid. It still adds no guidance on the projectId parameter beyond what the schema already says.
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?
States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (a URL) and even enumerates the facets returned: indexing, crawl, and robots.txt status. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling get_page_index_status, leaving the agent to infer which one answers a given indexing question.
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?
The description supplies a real precondition — the URL must belong to the project's connected Search Console property — which tells the agent when the tool will succeed. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_page_index_status vs this tool) or stating when not to reach for it.
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.