Google Search Console MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool checks 'indexing status and rich results,' indicating read-only inspection behavior, but fails to explicitly state safety characteristics (read-only vs. destructive), error handling behavior, rate limits, or what 'enhanced' specifically entails beyond standard inspection.

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?

The description is optimally structured with a single-sentence purpose statement followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence earns its place—no tautology or filler. The format examples are concise yet informative, and the information is front-loaded with the core function before parameter details.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the two input parameters but misses opportunity to describe the return structure or inspection results format. For a tool with 'enhanced' in its name, additional context about what differentiates it from standard inspection or what specific data points it returns would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by documenting both parameters in the Args section. It provides critical context for 'site_url' (requiring exact GSC property format with examples like 'sc-domain:example.com' and referencing 'list_properties') and explains domain property scoping behavior. The 'page_url' parameter is clearly defined as 'the specific URL to inspect.'

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?

The description clearly states the tool performs 'Enhanced URL inspection' to check 'indexing status and rich results in Google,' providing specific verbs (inspect/check) and resources (URL, indexing status, rich results). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'batch_url_inspection' (single vs. batch inspection), though the singular 'URL' and 'Enhanced' qualifier provide some implicit distinction.

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 provides implicit usage guidance through the Args section explaining site_url format requirements and domain property behavior, but lacks explicit 'when to use' guidance contrasting it with siblings like 'batch_url_inspection' or 'check_indexing_issues'. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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