Google Search Console MCP

Inspect URL index status

urls.inspect

Read-only

Check a single URL's Google index status to see if it's indexed, why it's missing, and get crawl date, mobile usability, rich-results eligibility, and AMP results.

Instructions

Inspect a single URL's index status in Google. Returns: whether the URL is indexed, last crawl date, indexing state, mobile usability, rich-results eligibility, and any AMP results. Use this when the user asks 'is X indexed?', 'why isn't X showing in Google?', or wants a deep look at one specific page. For bulk checks across many URLs, call this tool repeatedly — there is no batch endpoint — but note Google caps URL inspection at roughly 2,000 calls per property per day.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_url`	Yes	The Search Console property identifier, exactly as returned by sites.list. Two formats exist: domain properties use 'sc-domain:example.com'; URL-prefix properties use the full URL including protocol and trailing slash, e.g. 'https://www.example.com/'. Passing the wrong format returns a permission error even when the user owns the site — call sites.list first if unsure.
`language_code`	No	BCP-47 language code for translatable strings in the result, e.g. 'en-US' or 'de-DE'.	en-US
`inspection_url`	Yes	The fully-qualified URL to inspect. Must belong to the site_url property: same domain for sc-domain properties, same URL prefix for URL-prefix properties.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inspection_result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: there is no batch endpoint, repeated calls are needed for multiple URLs, and Google caps URL inspections at roughly 2,000 per property per day. It also details the return content, which helps the agent predict what the tool will produce. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is compact and well-structured: the first sentence states purpose and outputs, the second gives usage triggers, and the third covers bulk behavior and rate limits. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description is complete: it covers purpose, outputs, when to use, bulk limitations, rate caps, and the parameter caveats are in the schema. An output schema exists, so the description does not need to enumerate return types. Nothing an agent would need to decide whether and how to call this tool is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the parameter meanings, formats, and constraints are already fully described in the input schema. The tool description itself does not add new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, though it reinforces the single-URL scope.

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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect a single URL's index status in Google.' It enumerates the returned dimensions (indexed status, last crawl date, mobile usability, rich-results eligibility, AMP results), making the tool's purpose concrete and unambiguous. It also distinguishes this from bulk operations by emphasizing the single-URL scope.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: use when the user asks 'is X indexed?', 'why isn't X showing in Google?', or wants a deep look at one page. It also gives clear guidance for bulk checks ('call this tool repeatedly — there is no batch endpoint') and discloses the 2,000-calls-per-day cap, so an agent knows the operational boundaries.

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

Deploy Server