gsc-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Inspect URL

inspect_url

Run URL Inspection on any page to check index status, coverage, last crawl, canonical, mobile usability, and rich results. Diagnose why a page is or is not indexed.

Instructions

Run the URL Inspection tool on a single URL: index status, coverage, last crawl, canonical, mobile usability and rich-results state. Use this to diagnose why a page is or is not indexed. Subject to a 2,000/day per-property quota.

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": {
      "inspectionUrl": "<inspectionUrl>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`siteUrl`	No	Property as shown in Search Console: a URL-prefix property ends with a slash (e.g. "https://example.com/") or a domain property uses "sc-domain:example.com". May be a registered alias, or omitted to use the active/default site.
`languageCode`	No	BCP-47 code, e.g. 'en-US'. Default en-US.
`inspectionUrl`	Yes	The full URL to inspect. Must belong to the property.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the 2,000/day quota and implies a read operation, but does not mention authentication requirements or other behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with key information: what it does, what data it returns, and a usage example with quota. No wasted words.

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?

Given full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains purpose, returned data aspects, and quota. Lacks error handling info but adequate for a diagnostic tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited value beyond what the schema already provides. The usage hint reinforces purpose but does not deepen parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'Run the URL Inspection tool on a single URL' and lists the specific data retrieved (index status, coverage, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like query_search_analytics by focusing on single URL diagnosis.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use this to diagnose why a page is or is not indexed,' providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the sibling tools are distinct enough.

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

Deploy Server