mcp-seo-audit

inspect_url

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a URL's Google Search Console indexing status, rich results, and mobile usability to diagnose SEO issues.

Instructions

Inspect a URL for indexing status, rich results, and mobile usability.

Args:
    site_url: Exact GSC property URL (e.g. "sc-domain:example.com")
    page_url: The specific URL to inspect

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": {
      "site_url": "<site_url>",
      "page_url": "<page_url>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page_url`	Yes
`site_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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the site_url format requirement ('sc-domain:example.com'), which is genuinely useful context, but it omits quotas/rate limits and the constraint that the page must belong to the property.

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 main purpose sentence is front-loaded and the argument documentation is terse. Nothing is wasted, though the Args block is a slightly mechanical restatement of the schema.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. However, for an open-world tool with known API quota constraints, the absence of any quota/permission or property-membership note leaves a meaningful gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It supplies a concrete format example for site_url and identifies page_url as the target URL, which partially compensates, but page_url is essentially restated and no other constraints (must be in property, HTTPS, etc.) are given.

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 (URL) and enumerates the three things it checks: indexing status, rich results, and mobile usability. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling batch_inspect_urls, but the singular scope is inferable from the name.

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 mention of when this is preferable to batch_inspect_urls, analyze_page_seo, or audit_live_site, and no prerequisites stated. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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

Deploy Server