mcp-seo-audit

batch_inspect_urls

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect up to 50 URLs per call for Google Search Console indexing status while automatic rate limiting manages API quotas.

Instructions

Inspect multiple URLs for indexing status. Handles rate limiting automatically.
API limit: 2000/day, 600/minute. This tool handles up to 50 URLs per call.

Args:
    site_url: Exact GSC property URL (e.g. "sc-domain:example.com")
    urls: List of URLs to inspect, one per line

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	Yes
`site_url`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond that: automatic rate-limit handling, the 2000/day and 600/minute API quotas, and the 50-URL per-call ceiling. It does not describe failure behavior for oversized batches, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Purpose, rate limits and the 50-URL cap are front-loaded in the first three short sentences, followed by a compact Args block. No sentence is redundant and nothing is buried.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers quotas, batching limits and both parameters' formats. What is missing is error/partial-failure behavior for batches that exceed 50 URLs or hit the daily quota, which would matter for a bulk tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it explains site_url is an exact GSC property URL and gives the 'sc-domain:example.com' format, and clarifies that the urls string parameter is actually a newline-separated list ('one per line'). That resolves an ambiguity the bare 'type: string' schema leaves open.

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 and resource ('Inspect multiple URLs for indexing status') and the batch scope is explicit with the 'up to 50 URLs per call' cap. It distinguishes itself from the single-URL sibling inspect_url only implicitly through the word 'multiple'; it never names inspect_url as the single-URL alternative.

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?

The 50-URL cap and rate-limit handling imply that this is the tool for bulk inspection, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no reference to the sibling inspect_url for single-URL cases. Usage is inferable from the batch framing rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server