SEO Data MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

indexnow_submit

Submit same-host URLs to IndexNow to notify search engines of new or updated pages; explicit confirmation and a hosted verification key are required.

Instructions

WRITE: submit URLs to IndexNow, requires explicit confirm:true and a hosted verification key. Paid.

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": {
      "host": "<host>",
      "urls": "<urls>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "indexnow_submit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host`	Yes
`urls`	Yes
`confirm`	Yes
`keyLocation`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: this is a WRITE operation, it requires explicit confirmation, it needs a hosted verification key, and it is paid. It still omits consequences, response behavior, and failure modes, but the added operational constraints are valuable.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with the most important qualifier (WRITE) front-loaded. Every clause carries weight: action, resource, confirmation requirement, verification key, and payment status.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For an external write tool with no output schema, zero parameter descriptions, and paid access, the description is too sparse. It covers the confirmation and verification-key prerequisites but leaves the host/URL relationship, submission limits, and expected outcome or errors undocumented.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for four parameters. The description clarifies confirm:true and hints at a hosted verification key, but it does not explain the host parameter, the urls array, the 1–10,000 item limit, or how keyLocation relates to the verification key.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: submit URLs to IndexNow. It is clearly distinct from the sibling tools (queries, inspections, stats, pagespeed, crux, sitemaps), though it does not explicitly name an alternative or non-goal.

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?

It gives prerequisites (confirm:true, hosted verification key) and cost context (Paid), which implies when the tool is applicable. However, it does not explain when to use this versus other indexing-related siblings or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server