Batch inspect multiple URLs for a site to detect SEO issues. Use with Google or Bing search consoles for actionable insights.
Inspect multiple URLs for a site in batch
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The URL of the property | |
| inspectionUrls | Yes | List of URLs to inspect (max 5) | |
| languageCode | No | Language code for localized results (Google only) | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any rate limits, or potential effects. The term 'inspect' implies no modification, but this is not explicitly stated.
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?
The description is a single short sentence, very concise. It conveys the core purpose without extra words. However, it could be slightly more structured to front-load critical constraints like the batch limit.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context such as return type, limitation (max 5 URLs), or error behavior. It currently lacks these details.
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 the schema documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the brief sentence; it does not elaborate on any parameter details.
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 verb 'inspect', the resource 'multiple URLs for a site', and the mode 'batch'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'inspection_inspect' which inspects a single URL.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'inspection_inspect' exists for single URL inspection, but the description does not mention this or any other context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.