Skip to main content
Glama
MoonEyes

google-ecommerce-mcp

by MoonEyes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Indexing API status

indexing_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether Google received Indexing API notifications (URL_UPDATED or URL_DELETED) for a URL. Read-only: nothing is submitted.

Instructions

Latest Indexing API notifications (URL_UPDATED / URL_DELETED) Google holds for a URL. Read only: nothing is submitted. Most URLs were never notified, which is reported as such.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesFull URL to look up
client_idNoClient id from clients_list. Required when several clients are registered; empty uses the only client (or the environment variables when there is no client registry)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / client_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Client id from clients_list. Required when several clients are registered; empty uses the only client (or the environment variables when there is no client registry)",
+  "title": "Client Id"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / url / description
      Added value: +"Full URL to look up"
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: which notification categories are returned and the fact that absent notifications are reported as such rather than erroring.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded with the core deliverable first. The 'Read only: nothing is submitted' clause is slightly redundant against readOnlyHint but is brief and reinforces rather than clutters.

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 2-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete annotations, this covers what an agent needs, including the empty-result behavior. Only the shape of the returned notification data is left unspecified, which is minor given there is no output schema to describe anyway.

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 100% — both 'url' and 'client_id' are documented in the schema, including the multi-client condition for client_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific resource and scope: 'Latest Indexing API notifications (URL_UPDATED / URL_DELETED) Google holds for a URL.' The enumeration of the two notification types makes it unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling lookups like gsc_inspect_url or gsc_sitemaps.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the resource description, and the note that 'most URLs were never notified' usefully sets expectations. However, it never states when to prefer this over gsc_inspect_url or gsc_sitemaps, nor any prerequisites for having Indexing API data available.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools