Check the notification status for URLs submitted to the Google Indexing API to confirm indexing requests.
Check the notification status for a URL previously submitted to the Google Indexing API
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The property URL as registered in Search Console | |
| url | Yes | The URL to check notification status for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description indicates a read-only 'Check' operation. It does not detail response format, error conditions, or rate limits, but is adequate for a simple status check.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 13 words, no unnecessary verbiage. Efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand the tool's purpose. Could mention return format, but not strictly required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no new semantic info beyond the schema, baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states the verb 'Check', the resource 'notification status for a URL', and the context 'previously submitted to the Google Indexing API'. This distinguishes it from siblings like indexing_submit_url and inspection_inspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage after URL submission via 'previously submitted to the Google Indexing API', but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools. Context is clear but could be more directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.