Sam GSC MCP

check_url_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a URL is indexed in Google Search Console and retrieve its coverage state, last crawl date, canonical URL, and robots/fetch status.

Instructions

Quick yes/no: is this URL indexed? Plus coverage state, last crawl, canonical and robots/fetch status.

Args: site_url: Exact property (defaults to GSC_SITE_URL) page_url: Full URL to check

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_url_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page_url`	No
`site_url`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real value on top: it discloses the returned data points and the site_url fallback to the GSC_SITE_URL environment variable. It stops short of noting auth/permission requirements or behavior when the URL is outside the property.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The yes/no answer and returned-signal list are front-loaded, and the compact Args block avoids repetition. Every line earns its place; only minor gain from tightening 'Full URL to check'.

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?

With 0 required params, an output schema present, and only two inputs, the description supplies enough to invoke correctly: property scoping, env-var default, and what comes back. Remaining gaps (auth prerequisites, mismatch behavior) are modest for a read-only check.

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 0%, so the description must carry both parameters — it does explain site_url as the exact property with an env-var default, and page_url as the full URL. However, 'Full URL to check' gives no format details (scheme, whether it must belong to the property), leaving a gap on the more important parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('is this URL indexed?') and enumerates the returned signals (coverage state, last crawl, canonical, robots/fetch status). The 'Quick yes/no' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the heavier inspect_url_enhanced and batch_url_inspection siblings, but never names them.

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?

'Quick yes/no' implies this is the lightweight check versus a full inspection, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for bulk checks or deep inspection.

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