Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Google Search Console MCP

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

What Google knows about a URL

inspect_url
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a URL is indexed, why it may not appear in search, and view its canonical, crawl, mobile and rich-result data in Search Console.

Instructions

Ask Google what it actually knows about one URL: whether it is indexed, which sitemap it was found in, the canonical Google picked against the one the page declares, the last crawl, mobile usability, rich results and any AMP version. This is the tool for "why is this page not showing up". Two constraints worth knowing before a loop: the URL has to sit under the property, and the quota is roughly 2000 inspections a day and 600 a minute per property, so inspect the pages that matter rather than a whole site.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe full URL to inspect. Must be under the property.
siteYesThe Search Console property. Either a URL-prefix property ("https://navid.me/", trailing slash included) or a domain property ("sc-domain:navid.me"). A bare hostname is read as a domain property. Call list_sites for the exact strings this account owns, because the two shapes are different properties and mixing them up returns a 403.
accountNoWhich signed-in Google account to act as, by email. Omit to use the default. Call list_accounts to see what is signed in.
language_codeNoBCP-47 language for the messages Google returns, e.g. "en-US".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which already state readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive) by disclosing hard operational limits: the URL must be under the property, and quota is roughly 2000 inspections/day and 600/minute per property. That rate-limit and loop guidance is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then the diagnostic use case, then the two practical constraints. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

For a read-only inspection call with no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields, states the two required-parameter relationship, and flags the rate limits and property constraint. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and pace it sensibly.

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 is well documented there, including the URL-prefix vs domain property trap and the list_sites cross-reference. The description only restates the 'must sit under the property' constraint, adding no new per-parameter syntax or format detail.

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 and resource ('Ask Google what it actually knows about one URL') and enumerates the exact data returned (indexed status, sitemap, canonical mismatch, crawl date, mobile usability, rich results, AMP). It is clearly distinguishable from inspect_urls (plural) and query_search_analytics.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ('This is the tool for why is this page not showing up') and warns to inspect selective pages rather than a whole site. It doesn't name the sibling batch tool inspect_urls as the alternative for that case, so routing is slightly less complete than a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools