Google Search Console MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Audit indexing

audit_indexing

Read-only

Check a Google Search Console property's indexing health by rebuilding URL lists from its sitemaps; report index status, fixes, canonical conflicts, and sitemap gaps.

Instructions

Full indexing audit of a property, rebuilt from its sitemaps because Google's API does not expose the Page indexing report's URL lists. Each call inspects the next URLs (new ones first, then any checked more than 14 days ago) and reports every URL inspected so far: grouped by Google's index status with likely fixes, plus canonical conflicts, indexed pages with no search impressions in 90 days, and pages shown in search but missing from the sitemaps. Progress is saved locally, so call again to continue, today or on later days; Google allows 2,000 inspections per property per day.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`issue`	No	List every URL with this issue key (from issues[].key), 100 at a time. Nothing new is inspected.
`start`	No	Offset into the issue's URLs.
`inspect`	No	URLs to inspect in this call. Each takes a few seconds and they run 10 at a time, so 50 is about 30 seconds. 0 only reports.
`restart`	No	Forget this property's saved audit and start over.
`examples`	No	Example URLs shown per issue.
`site_url`	Yes	The property, as listed by list_sites: 'sc-domain:example.com' for a domain property or 'https://www.example.com/' for a URL-prefix property. A bare domain such as 'example.com', or any URL on the site, is resolved to the property that contains it.
`fetch_pages`	No	Also fetch inspected pages directly (only URLs inside the property), as many as inspect or 50 if it is 0, to compare their status code, redirects, noindex and canonical tag now with what Google last saw.
`sitemap_url`	No	Audit this sitemap (or sitemap index) instead of every sitemap submitted for the property.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`urls`	No
`issue`	No	The issue listed in urls, if any.
`notes`	No
`issues`	Yes
`coverage`	Yes
`site_url`	Yes
`sitemaps`	Yes
`inspected`	Yes
`next_start`	No	Pass as start to list the next page of the issue's URLs.
`live_checked`	Yes
`inspected_now`	Yes
`quota_used_today`	Yes	Inspections this server used for the property today (Pacific Time). Other tools and clients share Google's 2,000 a day.
`urls_in_sitemaps`	Yes
`not_yet_inspected`	Yes
`quota_exhausted_today`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the things an agent can't get from structured fields: local progress persistence with resume semantics, the restart-resets-saved-audit behavior, the 2,000-inspections-per-day quota, the 10-at-a-time concurrency and ~30s cost for 50 URLs, and which URLs are prioritized (new first, then stale >14 days). This is unusually rich operational context.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by resume/quota mechanics; there is little filler. It is slightly dense, and the run-on listing of reported categories (index status with fixes, canonical conflicts, no-impression pages, missing pages) leans into return-value detail that the output schema could carry.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given an output schema that documents the return shape and full schema coverage on all 8 parameters, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: why the audit is sitemap-driven, that it is resumable and quota-limited, and that issue mode is report-only. An agent can decide whether to call it, and how to call it repeatedly, without further information.

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%, and each parameter already carries detailed text (issue, start, inspect, restart, examples, site_url, fetch_pages, sitemap_url), so the schema does the heavy lifting and a baseline 3 applies. The description adds framing around the two operational modes and the daily quota but no additional parameter-level syntax or format guidance.

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+resource+method: a full indexing audit of a property, rebuilt from its sitemaps because Google's API omits the Page indexing report's URL lists. That method statement separates it cleanly from siblings like inspect_url, batch_inspect_urls and list_sitemaps, which do single/low-volume lookups or only enumerate sitemaps.

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?

It gives clear operating context: call again to continue the audit, today or on later days, with a hard ceiling of 2,000 inspections per property per day, and it explains that passing an issue key switches to a pure reporting mode where 'nothing new is inspected.' It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g., inspect_url for a one-off URL), so a routing decision between siblings still needs inference.

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