Google Search Console MCP Server

batch_url_inspection

Inspect multiple URLs simultaneously to identify indexing issues across your site. This feature processes large lists concurrently, optimizing your GSC property analysis.

Instructions

Inspect multiple URLs in batch (within API limits).

URLs are inspected concurrently, so a full batch stays well under the MCP
client's request timeout even on slower sc-domain:* properties.

Args:
    site_url: Exact GSC property URL from list_properties (e.g. "https://example.com/" or
              "sc-domain:example.com"). Domain properties cover all subdomains — use the
              domain property as site_url and filter by page to analyze a specific subdomain.
    urls: List of URLs to inspect, one per line

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	Yes
`site_url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: concurrent execution, timeout behavior, API limits, and domain-property coverage. It does not state read-only/safety profile, authentication requirements, or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the main action, then adds operational context and parameter notes. It is appropriately sized, though the Args section is slightly verbose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers parameter meaning, concurrency, timeout, and domain-property handling, leaving only minor gaps around batch limits and single-URL alternatives.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: site_url must come from list_properties with examples, and urls is a one-per-line list. It still does not specify batch-size limits or URL validation rules.

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 states a specific verb and resource: inspect multiple URLs in batch. It distinguishes the batch operation from single-URL inspection siblings by explicitly framing it as a multi-URL call.

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?

It gives clear usage context for batch inspection, API limits, concurrency, and how to choose site_url for domain properties versus URL-prefix properties. It does not explicitly name an alternative such as inspect_url_enhanced for single-URL checks.

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