inspect_urlCheck a single URL's index status in Google Search Console, including indexing issues, mobile usability, and canonical URL, to identify and resolve visibility problems.
Checks the index status of a single URL: is it indexed, what issues does Google report, mobile usability, canonical URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_url | No | Falls back to GSC_SITE_URL if omitted. | |
| inspection_url | Yes | Full URL to inspect. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. 'Checks' implies a read-only operation, but it does not state whether it is side-effect-free, whether auth or GSC property access is needed, or whether it consumes quota. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.
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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the action and then lists the concrete result categories. Every phrase contributes useful information with no redundancy.
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 simple two-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the main return aspects (indexed status, issues, mobile usability, canonical URL). It is slightly thin on behavioral context, but nothing essential to calling the tool correctly is missing.
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 the schema fully explains both parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, only reinforcing that a single URL is inspected.
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 uses a specific verb ('Checks') and a specific resource ('index status of a single URL'), while naming distinct result areas: indexed status, Google-reported issues, mobile usability, and canonical URL. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sites or search_analytics_query.
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 gives clear context: use this when you need the index status and related diagnostics for one specific URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the single-URL focus and sibling names make the intended use obvious.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.