Check Google's recorded index status for a URL in a verified Search Console property without running a live test, so you can confirm whether the page is indexed.
Consulta el estado de indexación de una URL que Google tiene registrado; no ejecuta una prueba en vivo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL completa que pertenece al sitio. | |
| siteUrl | Yes | URL exacta de la propiedad verificada. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond them: the data is Google's registered index state, not a live test, so results may be stale. It says nothing about what status fields come back, coverage/verdict values, or quota considerations.
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?
A single sentence with no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the clarifying caveat. Slightly terse — the important 'not a live test' qualifier sits after a semicolon rather than leading.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries some burden for explaining what an 'indexing status' result contains, and it doesn't. The safety profile is covered by annotations and the parameters by the schema, so it is adequate but leaves the return value undefined for an inspection tool.
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%, so both parameters (url, siteUrl) are already documented in the schema as a full URL and an exact verified property URL. The description adds no further detail on the relationship between the two, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: querying the indexing status of a URL as registered by Google. It also distinguishes itself from a live-fetch/crawl operation, which separates it from live-URL tools. It doesn't name a specific sibling (e.g., gsc_page_performance, bing_url_info) it should be chosen over.
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 clause 'no ejecuta una prueba en vivo' implies usage context — pick this when you want Google's recorded state rather than a live crawl — but no alternative tool is named and there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.