gsc-mcp

inspect_url

Check a URL in Google Search Console to get indexing status, last crawl time, canonical URL, and PASS/NEUTRAL/FAIL verdict to diagnose indexing issues.

Instructions

Inspect a single URL in GSC to get its indexing status, last crawl time, and canonical URL.

Returns verdict (PASS/NEUTRAL/FAIL), robotsTxtState, indexingState, pageFetchState, googleCanonical, userCanonical, and a derived category (indexed, robots_blocked, fetch_error, canonical_issue, not_indexed, unknown).

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": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`site`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. "Inspect" implies a read-only operation, which is useful, but it says nothing about auth/property requirements, rate limits, or the fact that the input site must be a verified GSC property. It is transparent about outputs only.

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?

Front-loaded and tight: purpose first, then expected outputs. The return-field enumeration partly duplicates the existing output schema, which is mildly wasteful, but the text is otherwise economical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the return-value listing is somewhat redundant, and the description omits the usage routing versus batch_url_inspection and the meaning of the site parameter. Adequate for a simple inspect tool but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two parameters. The description implies the url argument but never clarifies what "site" means (e.g. GSC property identifier/format), leaving a required parameter semantically undocumented in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ("Inspect") and resource ("a single URL in GSC") plus the data returned (indexing status, last crawl time, canonical URL). The word "single" implicitly contrasts with the batch_url_inspection sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by "single URL" versus the batch alternative, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer the single-vs-batch routing itself.

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

Deploy Server