Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Rapid URL Indexer MCP Server

Rapid URL Indexer MCP Server

by jphyqr
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

submit_urls

Submit URLs for Google indexing via Rapid URL Indexer, with credit-based pricing, duplicate tracking, and optional Apex Mode for faster indexing.

Instructions

Submit URLs for Google indexing via Rapid URL Indexer. Each URL costs 1 credit (or 3 in Apex Mode for faster indexing). URLs are tracked to prevent duplicate submissions.

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": {
      "urls": "<urls>",
      "app_name": "<app_name>"
    },
    "name": "submit_urls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlsYesArray of URLs to index
notifyNoEmail notifications on status change (default: false)
app_nameYesProject/app identifier (e.g., "vancouversublets", "hashbuilds")
apex_modeNoEnable Apex Mode - 3 credits/URL, faster indexing (default: false)
project_nameNoOptional name for this batch (defaults to {app_name}_{timestamp})

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: each URL costs credits, Apex Mode triples the cost for faster indexing, and duplicate submissions are tracked and prevented. This adds useful context beyond the schema, though it omits other potential behaviors like rate limits or authentication.

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?

Two sentences provide all essential information with zero fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds cost and duplicate-prevention details, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description covers the tool's primary side effects (cost, duplicate prevention) and works well with a fully self-explanatory schema. However, the absence of an output schema means the response format is unknown, leaving a small gap in completeness for a mutation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the real-world implications of the 'apex_mode' parameter (3 credits/URL for faster indexing) and the purpose of duplicate tracking connected to the 'urls' parameter. This enriches the schema without repeating it.

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 action ('Submit URLs') and the resource ('for Google indexing'), with a specific service ('Rapid URL Indexer'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'submit_sitemap' by focusing on individual URLs rather than a sitemap.

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 when you have individual URLs to index, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'submit_sitemap' or state when not to use it. The cost information provides some practical guidance, but no clear exclusions or alternative scenarios are given.

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