Google Search Console MCP Server

by rgellis

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

Inspect Url

inspect_url

Verify a single URL's Google Search index status and surface indexing issues for a specified Search Console property.

Instructions

Inspect one URL's index status in Google Search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_url`	Yes	Property identifier. The inspected URL must be under it.
`language_code`	No	BCP-47 code for translated issue messages, e.g. en-US.	en-US
`inspection_url`	Yes	Full URL to inspect.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Inspect' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the output schema covers return values, but the description does not disclose permission requirements, quota behavior, or Search Console property ownership constraints.

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?

A single efficient sentence front-loads the operation and resource. There is no redundant or wasted phrasing.

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?

For a simple read-only inspection tool with full schema descriptions and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the operation, scope, and resource. It could explicitly route the agent to 'inspect_urls' for multiple URLs, but that is the main missing contextual detail.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description adds only the concept of inspecting one URL's index status and does not contribute additional parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect'), a clear resource ('one URL's index status in Google Search'), and the singular scope distinguishes it from the sibling 'inspect_urls' bulk tool. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

The phrase 'one URL' implies this is for single-URL inspection versus the plural sibling 'inspect_urls', but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool, when not to, or that batch inspection should use the alternative. Usage is only implied.

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