Google Search Console MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Inspect URL index status

gsc_inspect_url

Check a URL's indexing status in Google Search Console to determine if it is indexed, uncover coverage issues, and review sitemap references for faster debugging.

Instructions

Inspect the indexed status of a URL under a Search Console property.

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": {
      "siteUrl": "<siteUrl>",
      "inspectionUrl": "<inspectionUrl>"
    },
    "name": "gsc_inspect_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`siteUrl`	Yes
`languageCode`	No	en-US
`inspectionUrl`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Inspect.' It does not explain whether this is a read-only operation, whether it performs a live inspection, what auth or property access is required, or what kind of response the agent should expect.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action and object, which makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions. The description does not explain return values, status semantics, possible error conditions, or how the inspection result should be interpreted. It is minimally adequate for selecting the tool but insufficient for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description needed to explain siteUrl, inspectionUrl, and languageCode. It only loosely maps to 'URL' and 'Search Console property,' leaving languageCode entirely unexplained and providing no format or constraint details for the required parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') with a specific resource ('indexed status of a URL') and scopes it to a Search Console property. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like gsc_search_analytics, gsc_list_sitemaps, and gsc_top_queries.

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 usage context is implied: use when you need to check whether a URL is indexed under a Search Console property. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives such as search analytics or sitemap tools.

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

Deploy Server