Skip to main content
Glama

Google_search_console

Gsc Inspect Url

gsc_inspect_url
Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect a specific URL's index status in Google: coverage state, last crawl, canonical, mobile usability, and rich-results status. Use to debug why a page is or isn't indexed.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteUrlYesThe property the URL belongs to, exactly as listed by gsc_list_sites
languageCodeNoBCP-47 language for the result (default "en-US")
inspectionUrlYesThe fully-qualified URL to inspect (must belong to siteUrl), e.g. "https://example.com/page"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  {
      +    "inspectionUrl": "https://example.com/blog/article",
      +    "siteUrl": "https://example.com/"
      +  }
      +]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant value by listing the specific return data (coverage state, last crawl, canonical, etc.) and the diagnostic purpose, going well beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 3 simple parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does and returns. It mentions key result fields (coverage, crawl, canonical, mobile usability, rich-results) so agents understand the response shape. No gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that siteUrl must match gsc_list_sites output and that inspectionUrl must belong to siteUrl, aiding correct parameter usage beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool inspects a URL's index status in Google, listing specific aspects (coverage, last crawl, canonical, mobile usability, rich-results). The verb 'inspect' with resource 'URL index status' is specific and distinct from sibling tools like gsc_list_sites or gsc_search_analytics.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use to debug why a page is or isn't indexed,' providing a clear use case. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for the agent to decide.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.