Inspect Google-indexed URLs via Search Console to check indexing status and issues without requesting indexing.
Read Google indexed URL inspection; does not request indexing. Paid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| site | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds valuable context by clarifying that no indexing request occurs and flagging that the operation is paid, though it does not describe the return contents or rate-limit details.
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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core operation and the key exclusion are front-loaded, and the cost warning is succinct.
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 two-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers the main behavioral distinction. But it omits parameter semantics and does not explain what the inspection returns, which is relevant because there is no output schema.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It provides no explanation of what 'site' means in Google Search Console terms or how 'url' relates to the inspected property, leaving both required parameters only inferable from their names.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Read Google indexed URL inspection.' It also explicitly contrasts with indexing submission ('does not request indexing'), which helps distinguish it from the sibling indexnow_submit tool.
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 clearly states an exclusion: this reads inspection data and does not request indexing. However, it does not name alternatives such as gsc_query or pagespeed, nor does it explain when a paid inspection is preferable to other diagnostics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.