Skip to main content
Glama
fetchSERP

FetchSERP MCP Server

Official
by fetchSERP

check_page_indexation

Verify if a domain is indexed for a specific keyword using FetchSERP MCP Server. Ideal for SEO analysis, this tool helps validate keyword-domain pair indexation.

Instructions

Check if a domain is indexed for a given keyword

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe domain to check
keywordYesThe keyword to check

Implementation Reference

  • Handler case for 'check_page_indexation' tool that forwards the request to the FetchSERP API endpoint '/api/v1/page_indexation'.
    case 'check_page_indexation':
      return await this.makeRequest('/api/v1/page_indexation', 'GET', args, null, token);
  • Schema definition for the 'check_page_indexation' tool, specifying input parameters 'domain' and 'keyword'.
    {
      name: 'check_page_indexation',
      description: 'Check if a domain is indexed for a given keyword',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          domain: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The domain to check',
          },
          keyword: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The keyword to check',
          },
        },
        required: ['domain', 'keyword'],
      },
    },
  • Shared helper method 'makeRequest' that performs authenticated API calls to FetchSERP endpoints, used by the 'check_page_indexation' handler.
    async makeRequest(endpoint, method = 'GET', params = {}, body = null, token = null) {
      const fetchserpToken = token || process.env.FETCHSERP_API_TOKEN;
      
      if (!fetchserpToken) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InvalidRequest,
          'FETCHSERP_API_TOKEN is required'
        );
      }
    
      const url = new URL(`${API_BASE_URL}${endpoint}`);
      
      // Add query parameters for GET requests
      if (method === 'GET' && Object.keys(params).length > 0) {
        Object.entries(params).forEach(([key, value]) => {
          if (value !== undefined && value !== null) {
            if (Array.isArray(value)) {
              value.forEach(v => url.searchParams.append(`${key}[]`, v));
            } else {
              url.searchParams.append(key, value.toString());
            }
          }
        });
      }
    
      const fetchOptions = {
        method,
        headers: {
          'Authorization': `Bearer ${fetchserpToken}`,
          'Content-Type': 'application/json',
        },
      };
    
      if (body && method !== 'GET') {
        fetchOptions.body = JSON.stringify(body);
      }
    
      const response = await fetch(url.toString(), fetchOptions);
      
      if (!response.ok) {
        const errorText = await response.text();
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InternalError,
          `API request failed: ${response.status} ${response.statusText} - ${errorText}`
        );
      }
    
      return await response.json();
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's action ('check') but doesn't describe what 'indexed' means in this context, how the check is performed (e.g., via search engine queries), what the output might look like, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, accuracy). For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resources, making it easy to parse quickly. There is no wasted text, earning it a top score for conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'indexed' entails, the method of checking, potential outputs, or error handling. For a tool that likely interacts with external services (e.g., search engines), more context is needed to understand its behavior and limitations.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('domain' and 'keyword'). The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters without extra help from the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check if a domain is indexed for a given keyword.' It specifies the verb ('check') and the resources involved ('domain' and 'keyword'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., get_serp_results or get_domain_ranking), which would be needed for a score of 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons to sibling tools like get_serp_results or get_domain_ranking that might offer related functionality. This lack of guidance leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/fetchSERP/fetchserp-mcp-server-node'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server