Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ga4-mcp

ga4-mcp

by chimpmatic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

gsc_inspect_url

Inspect a URL in Google Search Console to check index status, crawl data, mobile usability, and rich results.

Instructions

Inspects a URL in Google Search Console — returns index status, crawl info, mobile usability, and rich results.

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": {
      "site_url": "<site_url>",
      "inspection_url": "<inspection_url>"
    },
    "name": "gsc_inspect_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_urlYesSite URL as defined in GSC (e.g. "https://example.com/" or "sc-domain:example.com")
inspection_urlYesFull URL to inspect (must be under the site_url property)
language_codeNoLanguage for issue messages (default: en-US)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authorization needs, rate limits, or side effects. It only lists return categories without further detail, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's primary action and output.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description lists expected return items but lacks depth on output structure or edge cases. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only explains the overall purpose without detailing parameter usage or syntax.

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 'inspects' and the resource 'URL in Google Search Console'. It lists the return categories (index status, crawl info, mobile usability, rich results), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gsc_search_analytics or gsc_list_sites.

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?

The description implies usage for URL inspection but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gsc_search_analytics or indexing_notify. No exclusions or comparative context are provided.

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