Supports inspecting a URL's AMP status, mobile usability, and rich results via the URL inspection tools.
Provides integration with the Google Indexing API to notify Google about URL updates or removals, supporting both single and batch notifications.
Offers full API coverage for Google Search Console, including managing sites, submitting sitemaps, and querying comprehensive search performance data like clicks, impressions, CTR, and ranking positions.
MCP server for Google Search Console API and Google Indexing API — full API coverage.
Task | Tool |
"Check which queries my site ranks for" |
|
"Notify Google about an eligible job posting or livestream URL" |
|
"Find pages with indexing errors" |
|
"Get search performance data for the last 30 days" |
|
"Compare click-through rates between mobile and desktop" |
|
"Submit my sitemap to Google" |
|
"Batch notify eligible job posting/livestream URLs" |
|
For AI agents: See
llms.txtfor a machine-readable summary. Copytemplates/CLAUDE.mdortemplates/AGENTS.mdinto your project to teach your agent about this MCP.
Unlike other GSC MCP servers that only wrap searchAnalytics.query, this server exposes every endpoint available in the Google Search Console and Indexing APIs.
Related MCP server: gsc-mcp
Tool | Description |
| List all sites (properties) in your Search Console |
| Get details of a specific site |
| Add a new site (property) |
| Remove a site |
Tool | Description |
| List all submitted sitemaps for a site |
| Get details of a specific sitemap |
| Submit a sitemap |
| Delete a sitemap |
Tool | Description |
| Query search performance data (clicks, impressions, CTR, position) with filtering and grouping. Supports hourly data with the |
Tool | Description |
| Inspect a URL's index status, crawl info, rich results, and AMP (the deprecated mobile-usability field may be absent) |
Tool | Description |
| Notify Google about an eligible |
| Get latest notification metadata for an eligible URL (requires |
| Batch notify up to 100 eligible URLs and report every embedded request status |
Indexing API eligibility: Google supports this API only for pages with
JobPostingstructured data or livestream pages withBroadcastEventembedded in aVideoObject. The tools requirecontentTypeso callers must identify which supported type applies. A successful API response confirms receipt of the notification; it does not guarantee that Google indexed the URL. Useurl_inspection_inspectto check index status. See Google's Indexing API usage guide.
Two authentication methods are supported:
{
"mcpServers": {
"gsc-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@mikusnuz/gsc-mcp"],
"env": {
"GSC_CLIENT_ID": "your-client-id",
"GSC_CLIENT_SECRET": "your-client-secret",
"GSC_REFRESH_TOKEN": "your-refresh-token"
}
}
}
}Required OAuth2 scopes:
https://www.googleapis.com/auth/webmasters
https://www.googleapis.com/auth/indexing
{
"mcpServers": {
"gsc-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@mikusnuz/gsc-mcp"],
"env": {
"GSC_SERVICE_ACCOUNT_KEY_PATH": "/path/to/service-account-key.json"
}
}
}
}For Search Console read/write tools, add the service account as an owner or user with sufficient permission. For Indexing API tools, Google requires the service account to be added as a delegated owner of the property; user-level access is not sufficient.
Go to Google Cloud Console
Create a project (or select existing)
Enable Search Console API and Indexing API
Create OAuth 2.0 credentials (Desktop app type)
Use the OAuth Playground to generate a refresh token with scopes:
https://www.googleapis.com/auth/webmasters
https://www.googleapis.com/auth/indexing
Go to Google Cloud Console
Create a service account
Download the JSON key file
Enable Search Console API and Indexing API
In Search Console, add the service account email as an owner for your sites
MIT
Batch notify Google about multiple URL updates or removals via the Indexing API. Combines up to 100 notifications into a single HTTP request for efficiency.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notifications | Yes | Array of URL notifications (1-100 items). Each item has a url and type. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool handles updates and removals (destructive behavior) and sets a limit of 100 notifications. However, it omits authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no redundant information. Every word adds value, front-loading the purpose and key constraint.
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 description covers the main action and batching aspect, but with no output schema, it lacks details about return values, error handling, or prerequisites like site ownership verification.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all properties. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, essentially restating that it combines up to 100 notifications. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'notify' and resource 'Google about multiple URL updates or removals', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like indexing_publish (single notification) and indexing_get_metadata (metadata retrieval).
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?
It explicitly states the tool is for batching up to 100 notifications for efficiency, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives like indexing_publish for single notifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the latest indexing notification metadata for a URL. Returns the latest URL_UPDATED and URL_DELETED notification timestamps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The fully-qualified URL to check notification status for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., what happens if the URL is not found). Only the return value is described.
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?
The description is extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and return value. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the clear schema coverage, the description is adequate. It could benefit from mentioning the response structure or typical use cases, but it is largely complete for this straightforward operation.
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?
The input schema is fully described (100% coverage) for the single parameter 'url'. The schema description already explains it as a fully-qualified URL. The tool description adds no further semantic detail beyond that.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving latest indexing notification metadata for a URL. It specifies the returned data (URL_UPDATED and URL_DELETED timestamps), distinguishing it from sibling tools like indexing_publish which handle submissions.
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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like url_inspection_inspect or search_analytics_query. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided, though the use case is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Notify Google about a URL update or removal via the Indexing API. Use URL_UPDATED when a page is created or updated, URL_DELETED when a page is removed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The fully-qualified URL to notify about | |
| type | Yes | Notification type: URL_UPDATED or URL_DELETED |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the return value is (no output schema). The description only says 'Notify Google,' lacking details on side effects or failure modes.
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?
Two sentences with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides parameter guidance. Every word earns its place.
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 tool is simple with two parameters and no output schema. The description adequately covers the main purpose and parameter usage, but fails to mention what happens after the notification (e.g., if it's synchronous, if there's a response). Given the lack of output schema and the presence of multiple siblings, a slightly more complete description would be beneficial, but the current version is minimally adequate.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the semantics of the 'type' enum (when to use each value), which is not evident from the schema alone. This justifies a score of 4.
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?
The description clearly states the action: 'Notify Google about a URL update or removal via the Indexing API.' It identifies the specific resource (URLs) and the action (notify), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tool 'indexing_batch_publish' by focusing on a single URL.
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 description provides guidance on choosing the 'type' parameter (URL_UPDATED vs URL_DELETED), which helps the agent use the tool correctly. However, it does not compare this tool to alternatives like indexing_batch_publish or indexing_get_metadata, leaving the agent without advice on when to use this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Query search traffic data from Google Search Console. Returns clicks, impressions, CTR, and position data with flexible filtering and grouping.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The site URL | |
| startDate | Yes | Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| endDate | Yes | End date in YYYY-MM-DD format | |
| dimensions | No | Dimensions to group by: country, device, page, query, searchAppearance, date, hour (hour requires dataState='hourly_all') | |
| type | No | Search type filter: web, image, video, news, discover, googleNews (default: web) | |
| dimensionFilterGroups | No | Filter groups to apply to the query | |
| aggregationType | No | How data is aggregated (default: auto) | |
| rowLimit | No | Maximum number of rows to return (1-25000, default: 1000) | |
| startRow | No | Zero-based row offset for pagination | |
| dataState | No | 'all' includes fresh (possibly incomplete) data, 'final' only finalized data, 'hourly_all' required when using 'hour' dimension |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as required permissions (must have site access in Search Console), data freshness considerations, potential sampling, or rate limits. The mention of 'flexible filtering' is generic and not actionable.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence covering purpose and output. It could be better structured with more detail, but it is not verbose.
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?
With 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It omits crucial context such as pagination behavior, output structure, data staleness implications, and prerequisites for using dimensions like 'hour'.
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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds only generic phrasing ('flexible filtering and grouping') that does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool queries search traffic data from Google Search Console and returns clicks, impressions, CTR, and position. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with indexing, sitemaps, and site management.
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 description provides clear context for the tool's purpose in analytics, and sibling tools are distinctly different (indexing, sitemaps, sites), making it easy to choose. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a sitemap from Google Search Console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The site URL | |
| feedpath | Yes | The URL of the sitemap to delete |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only states the deletion action but does not disclose side effects, ownership requirements, or any behavioral details beyond the basic operation. Since no annotations are present, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single 8-word sentence that is efficient and front-loaded, but it could benefit from slightly more context without becoming verbose.
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?
For a destructive tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or prerequisites, making it incomplete.
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 100%, providing basic definitions for both parameters ('The site URL' and 'The URL of the sitemap to delete'). The tool description adds no additional semantics, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete' and the resource 'a sitemap from Google Search Console', distinguishing it from sibling tools like sitemaps_get or sitemaps_submit.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve information about a specific sitemap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The site URL | |
| feedpath | Yes | The URL of the sitemap (e.g. 'https://example.com/sitemap.xml') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Retrieve information', implying a read operation, but omits details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format.
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?
The description is a single 7-word sentence, very concise. However, it is nearly too minimal; slightly more detail could improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, error scenarios, and relationship to other sitemap tools. It is incomplete for effective use.
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 100% for both parameters (siteUrl, feedpath) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a clear verb 'Retrieve' and specifies the resource 'information about a specific sitemap'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sitemaps_delete and sitemaps_list by implying a read operation, but could be more precise about what 'information' entails.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sitemaps_list or sitemaps_submit. The description does not mention prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all sitemaps submitted for a site in Google Search Console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The site URL | |
| sitemapIndex | No | Optional: URL of a sitemap index to list only sitemaps in that index |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description only states it lists sitemaps, but does not disclose behavioral details like whether it returns all at once, pagination, or any side effects. As a read operation, it assumes safety but is not explicit.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Action and resource are front-loaded, making it efficient for quick understanding.
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?
No output schema, so the description should hint at what is returned (e.g., list of URLs, statuses). It does not. Also lacks mention of scope (only submitted sitemaps) or behavior when siteUrl is invalid.
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 coverage is 100% and parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'all sitemaps submitted for a site in Google Search Console', which is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like sitemaps_delete or sitemaps_get.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., sitemaps_get for single sitemap). No mention of prerequisites or context for use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Submit a sitemap for a site to Google Search Console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The site URL | |
| feedpath | Yes | The URL of the sitemap to submit (e.g. 'https://example.com/sitemap.xml') |
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 only states the action without revealing whether submission is idempotent, what happens on duplicate submission, or any auth/validation requirements.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words, effectively communicating the tool's purpose.
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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description omits return value information (e.g., success/failure indication) and important context like idempotency or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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?
The input schema already covers both parameters (siteUrl and feedpath) with clear descriptions, so the description adds no additional semantic value. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly states 'Submit a sitemap for a site to Google Search Console,' which specifies the verb 'submit' and the resource 'sitemap for a site.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sitemaps_delete, sitemaps_get, and sitemaps_list.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., sitemaps_get, sitemaps_delete) and does not mention prerequisites such as site verification in Google Search Console.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add a site (property) to Google Search Console. Verification may still be required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The site URL to add (e.g. 'https://example.com/' or 'sc-domain:example.com') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that verification may still be required, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or asynchronous behavior.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate, covering the purpose and a key behavioral note. Could mention success/failure or duplicate handling.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds no further meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'site (property) to Google Search Console', and distinguishes from sibling tools like sites_delete, sites_list, etc.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the simplicity of the tool and sibling context imply it's for adding new sites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Remove a site (property) from Google Search Console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The site URL to remove |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states 'Remove', implying a destructive action, but does not explain irreversibility, required permissions, or consequences for other Search Console features.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without extraneous words.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the removal process, reversibility, and potential side effects. It is insufficient for a destructive operation.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the only parameter ('The site URL to remove'). The tool description adds the overall context of removal but does not provide additional formatting or constraints beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove'), the resource ('a site (property)'), and the domain ('from Google Search Console'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like sites_add, sites_get, and sitemaps_delete.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or restrictions mentioned (e.g., site verification status, impact on indexing).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve information about a specific site (property) in Google Search Console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The site URL (e.g. 'https://example.com/' or 'sc-domain:example.com') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It only states 'retrieve information' without disclosing side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format. This is insufficient for a read operation.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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?
For a simple 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. However, it lacks detail on what 'information' is returned and any edge cases (e.g., invalid URLs). Slightly below ideal.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description of the siteUrl parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already provides adequate detail. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves information about a specific site, using the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'information about a specific site'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'sites_list' and 'sites_add'/'sites_delete', which are list and mutation operations respectively.
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 description implies use when needing site info, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not reference sibling tools or provide context for choosing this over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all sites (properties) you have access to in Google Search Console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 fails to mention potential behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or whether 'access' implies any permissions beyond listing.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the key information. No extraneous words, perfectly efficient.
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?
For a parameterless list tool, the description is adequate but lacks details on return format, pagination, or required permissions. It is minimally complete given the simplicity.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is appropriate given no parameters exist.
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?
The description clearly states the verb (list), resource (sites/properties), and scope (you have access to). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sites_get or sites_add, the purpose is unambiguous.
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 description implies when to use the tool (to list all accessible sites) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives such as sites_get for a specific site.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Inspect a URL in Google's index. Returns indexing status, crawl info, rich results, AMP status, and mobile usability for a specific URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inspectionUrl | Yes | The fully-qualified URL to inspect (must be under the site) | |
| siteUrl | Yes | The site URL (property) the inspected URL belongs to | |
| languageCode | No | Optional BCP-47 language code for localized results (e.g. 'en-US', 'ko') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It lists return types (indexing status, etc.) but does not disclose rate limits, auth needs, or that the URL must be under the site. No contradictions.
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?
Single-sentence description packs all needed info without fluff, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., list results). Still very concise.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description adequately lists the types of results returned. The requirement that inspectionUrl is under siteUrl is in schema, but might help to mention in description. Overall complete for a read-only tool.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond summarizing the tool's output, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('URL in Google's index'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like indexing_batch_publish or search_analytics_query.
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?
While no explicit when-not or alternatives are given, the description implies use for SEO diagnostics by listing the inspection results, and the context of sibling tools (e.g., publishing, sitemaps) helps differentiate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool targets a distinct domain (sites, sitemaps, indexing, analytics, inspection) with clear actions. No overlaps between groups.
All tool names follow a consistent `domain_verb` pattern in snake_case (e.g., `sites_list`, `indexing_publish`), making them predictable.
13 tools cover the core Google Search Console functionalities well: site management, sitemaps, indexing, analytics, and URL inspection. Not excessive or sparse.
All major areas have CRUD-like coverage (sites, sitemaps, indexing notifications, analytics query, URL inspection). Minor gap: no aggregate listing of indexed URLs, but within scope.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
SEO MCP server for keyword research, SERP analysis, audits, and Search Console workflows.
SEO MCP server: crawl your site, find AI-visibility gaps, and ship the fix from your coding agent.
MCP server for Google search results via SERP API
Web Analitiği MCP sunucusu — in-house on-page SEO denetimi (robots.txt + SSRF korumalı crawl),…
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mikusnuz/gsc-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
