mcp-seo-audit

check_indexing_notification

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the latest indexing notification status for a URL to see whether Google has processed it or reported issues.

Instructions

Check the latest indexing notification status for a URL.

Args:
    url: The URL to check

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>"
    },
    "name": "check_indexing_notification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping detail that only the *latest* notification is returned (no history), but says nothing about where the notification data originates or what states can come back.

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?

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and wastes nothing; the 'Args:' block adds little but is conventional and brief. Overall appropriately sized for a single-parameter lookup.

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 return values need not be explained, and the read-only annotations cover behavior. Still missing is the source/system context (e.g., Search Console notification) and any hint about acceptable URL format, which leaves the definition only minimally viable.

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?

The single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load, and it does not: 'The URL to check' merely restates the parameter name. It omits whether a full page URL, a domain property, or a URL-prefix property is expected.

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 (check) and resource (latest indexing notification status) scoped to a URL, which is clearly distinct from request_indexing and batch_request_indexing. It stops short of naming how it differs from the nearby inspect_url, but an agent can still tell what it does.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether the URL must be a verified property), and no mention of alternatives such as request_indexing or inspect_url. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and one-line purpose.

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

Deploy Server