inspect_urlCheck if a URL is indexed in Google, view its crawl date, canonical selection, and identify blocking issues using Google Search Console data.
Google URL Inspection: is this URL indexed, when was it crawled, which canonical Google chose, and any blocking issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Full page URL | |
| site | Yes | Your site, e.g. "example.com". Use list_sites to see options. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying exactly what kind of information will be returned: indexed status, crawl time, canonical choice, and blocking issues. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss error conditions or freshness limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and quickly enumerates the key outputs. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-required-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the essential return categories even without an output schema. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though a note about response shape or failure modes would make it fully self-sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both `site` and `url` already documented. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly names the resource (a specific URL) and the operation (Google URL Inspection), and enumerates what it answers: indexed status, crawl date, Google-chosen canonical, and blocking issues. This differentiates it from sibling site-level tools like site_overview and search_performance without needing to inspect their schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the clear use case: investigate a specific page's indexing and blocking status in Google. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough that an agent can reasonably select this tool for per-URL diagnostics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.