mcp-seo-audit

batch_request_indexing

Submit multiple URLs for Google indexing in batches, respecting rate limits and quotas, for pages with JobPosting or BroadcastEvent structured data.

Instructions

Request indexing for multiple URLs. Processes sequentially with rate limiting.
Default quota: 200/day. Only for pages with JobPosting or BroadcastEvent structured data.

Args:
    urls: List of URLs to index, one per line (max 100 per batch)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world mutation, and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: sequential processing, rate limiting, a daily quota, and a 100-URL batch cap. It doesn't say what happens on partial failure or how the quota is consumed across batches, which keeps 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the purpose and operational constraints in four tight sentences with no filler. The 'Args:' block is slightly redundant with the schema but cheap and harmless.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key constraints an agent needs (eligibility, quota, batch size, rate limiting). Minor gaps remain around failure/partial-success behavior, but nothing critical is missing.

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% (the single parameter is just typed string with title 'Urls'), so the description carries the full burden and delivers: format (one URL per line) and a hard limit (max 100 per batch). This is exactly the added meaning the schema lacks.

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 ('Request indexing') scoped to multiple URLs, which implicitly distinguishes it from the single-URL sibling request_indexing. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so the differentiation relies on the agent noticing 'multiple URLs'.

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?

Gives a concrete eligibility rule ('Only for pages with JobPosting or BroadcastEvent structured data') and quota context (200/day), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It never explicitly routes to request_indexing for single URLs, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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

Deploy Server