mcp-seo-audit

request_indexing

Submit a URL to Google's Indexing API to request crawling and indexing. Only works for pages with JobPosting or BroadcastEvent structured data.

Instructions

Request Google to crawl and index a URL via the Indexing API.
IMPORTANT: Only works for pages with JobPosting or BroadcastEvent structured data.
Default quota: 200 requests/day.

Args:
    url: The full URL to request indexing for

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": "request_indexing"
  }
}

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

A4.3/5.0

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 behavior, and the description adds genuinely useful operational context: the structured-data eligibility restriction and the 200 requests/day quota. Missing auth model (service-account ownership) is a minor gap given annotations cover the mutation profile.

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?

Purpose and critical constraints are front-loaded and the warning is emphasized appropriately. The trailing 'Args:' block largely restates the parameter and is mildly redundant, but overall it is tight.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential nuances: eligibility restriction, quota, and the nature of the operation. Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the value is the full URL to request indexing for, which adds the important detail that a complete URL (not a path) is required, though format specifics are still left to inference.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource (request crawl/index of a URL) and names the API. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like batch_request_indexing and request_removal.

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?

Explicitly states the major eligibility constraint (only JobPosting or BroadcastEvent structured data) and the default quota, which tells the agent when the call will fail. It does not, however, explicitly route to batch_request_indexing when multiple URLs are involved.

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

Deploy Server