Check whether Google has indexed a URL in an accessible Search Console property without requesting indexing.
Read Google's indexed status for a URL within an accessible property; does not request indexing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| site_url | No | ||
| language_code | No | ||
| inspection_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Input schema / properties / accountAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Account"
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's 'does not request indexing' largely restates readOnlyHint rather than adding new behavior, and it says nothing about quota, per-property auth, or failure modes for inaccessible properties.
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?
A single compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the disambiguation clause second. Every word earns its place; nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, which helps. But with four parameters at 0% description coverage and no annotations for auth or quota, the description leaves real gaps around language_code and account/property selection that an agent would have to guess at.
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 0%, so the description carries the burden for four parameters and mostly does not. 'Within an accessible property' loosely gestures at site_url/account, and inspection_url is self-evident, but language_code is never mentioned and the account-vs-site_url relationship is unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Read Google's indexed status for a URL within an accessible property.' It also preempts a likely confusion by stating 'does not request indexing.' Sibling differentiation is only implicit, since none of the listed siblings (query_performance, get_top_queries, list_sites) overlap in purpose.
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 phrase 'within an accessible property' implies a precondition (the property must be accessible), and the negative clause excludes the request-indexing use case. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools, or what to do when a property is not accessible.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.