Google Search Console by Get MCP Ads

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gsc bulk inspect urls

gsc_bulk_inspect_urls

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect multiple URLs in Google Search Console to check indexing status, with per-URL error handling so one bad URL doesn't break the batch.

Instructions

Inspect multiple URLs with a conservative sequential limit and normalized URL Inspection results. Quota: 2000 requests/day/property.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`urls`	Yes	Full URLs to inspect. Maximum 10 per call to protect URL Inspection quota.
`siteUrl`	No	Search Console property URL, e.g. https://example.com/ or sc-domain:example.com. Uses GSC_SITE_URL when omitted.
`languageCode`	No	Optional IETF language tag, e.g. en-US or fr-FR.
`continueOnError`	No	When true, returns per-URL errors instead of failing the entire batch.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Original tool result: parsed JSON when the text is JSON, otherwise the text or multiple MCP content blocks. Provider fields depend on the selected query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by disclosing a rate limit ('2000 requests/day/property') and a 'conservative sequential limit', plus normalization of results. This is useful operational context beyond the annotations, though the exact throttling mechanism is not detailed.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action ('Inspect multiple URLs') is front-loaded, and the quota/limit caveat follows in a compact second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 the presence of a full output schema, annotations, and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description covers the essential constraints: batch scope, sequential processing, and quota. It could be slightly more complete by naming gsc_inspect_url as the single-URL alternative, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with meaningful descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail, which is acceptable at the baseline 3; the description's quota note complements but does not compensate for schema-level parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect multiple URLs', which clearly distinguishes this batch tool from the sibling gsc_inspect_url for single URL inspection. It also adds meaningful qualifiers ('conservative sequential limit', 'normalized URL Inspection results') that go beyond the tool name.

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 clearly implies batch usage ('multiple URLs') and provides operational context via the quota and sequential-limit notes. However, it does not explicitly state 'use gsc_inspect_url for a single URL' or mention any exclusion criteria, so it stops short of fully explicit alternative routing.

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