QuerySail: Google Search Console

Inspect URLs in Search Console

inspect_urls

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks whether specific pages are indexed by Google, why a page is not on Google, or which canonical Google chose. Runs Search Console URL Inspection for 1 to 20 full URLs of one property and returns, per URL: whether it is on Google, the coverage state (for example 'Crawled - currently not indexed'), robots.txt and noindex blocking, the page fetch result, last crawl time and crawler, the canonical Google chose versus the one the page declares, sitemaps and referring pages that list it, and detected rich results with their issues. Results describe the version Google last indexed, not a live test. Each URL must belong to the property, given by its exact property_id. Read-only; cannot request indexing, a recrawl or change anything in Search Console.

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": {
      "property_id": "<property_id>",
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_urls"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`urls`	Yes	Full page URLs to inspect, including https://. All must belong to the property. Duplicates are inspected once.
`property_id`	Yes	Exact property ID from list_properties, e.g. 'sc-domain:example.com' or 'https://example.com/'.
`connection_id`	No	Optional: force a specific Google connection when the property is visible to several.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notes`	No
`results`	No
`summary`	No
`property`	No
`freshness`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 11, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / requestId
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
First observedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds real context: the data is Google's last-indexed snapshot rather than a live fetch, URLs must belong to a single property, and it cannot request indexing or recrawls. It also discloses the full per-URL result set, so the agent knows what evidence it will get back.

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?

Usage conditions are front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the long enumeration of return fields is a single dense sentence that partly duplicates the output schema. It is efficient for its content, though trimming the return-value list would tighten it.

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 read-only inspection tool with an output schema, the description covers the trigger, the input constraints, the snapshot-vs-live caveat, and the explicit non-capabilities. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the result.

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%, so the schema already documents the URL format, the 1–20 bound, duplicate handling, and the property_id format with an example. The description reinforces the 'one property' constraint and the exact property_id requirement but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, which matches the baseline 3.

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 ('Runs Search Console URL Inspection') plus the exact question it answers (is this page indexed, why not, which canonical). It also enumerates the per-URL return payload, so an agent can distinguish it from list_properties or get_performance without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: the user asks whether pages are indexed, why a page is not on Google, or which canonical was chosen. It also sets a clear boundary ('Results describe the version Google last indexed, not a live test'), which prevents misuse for live-testing. It stops short of naming a sibling tool for adjacent tasks such as sitemap or property listing.

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

All QuerySail: Google Search Console 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.