Submit a URL to Google or Bing for indexing to notify search engines of page updates.
Submit a URL for indexing (notify Google or Bing that a page was updated). Google Indexing API is officially for JobPosting/BroadcastEvent pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The property URL as registered in Search Console | |
| url | Yes | The specific URL to submit for indexing | |
| engine | No | The search engine (default: google) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions Google API scope but lacks details on rate limits, idempotency, quota consumption, or error handling. A score of 3 reflects adequate but not comprehensive transparency.
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?
Two concise sentences with no extraneous information. The main action and key constraint are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.
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?
The description covers the core action and a key constraint, but omits details about output, errors, prerequisites (like authentication), or quota management. For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.
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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema fields; for example, it reinforces the 'url' purpose but doesn't explain the 'engine' default or 'siteUrl' registration requirement in greater depth.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Submit a URL for indexing'), the target search engines (Google or Bing), and includes a crucial constraint about Google's API limitation to JobPosting/BroadcastEvent pages. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like indexing_remove_url and indexing_status.
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?
The description specifies when to use the tool (notify search engines of URL updates) and provides an important restriction for Google. While not exhaustive about alternatives, the note about Bing being acceptable and the context of sibling tools give decent guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.