indexnow-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable return value information ('Shows when the URL was last submitted') but omits safety profile (read-only nature), rate limits, error handling for unsubmitted URLs, and required OAuth scopes despite having auth parameter.

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 sentences, zero waste. First sentence establishes purpose and API context; second sentence discloses return value. Perfectly front-loaded with no redundant or filler text.

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?

Appropriately complete for a 2-parameter tool with no output schema. Covers core functionality and return value. Minor gap: lacks explicit read-only safety declaration needed in absence of annotations, but sufficient for agent selection and invocation.

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 has 100% description coverage (url and access_token fully documented), establishing baseline 3. Description adds contextual framing ('via Google Indexing API') but does not expand on parameter semantics, formats, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Excellent specificity with 'Check the indexing notification status' (verb + resource), explicitly references 'Google Indexing API' to distinguish from IndexNow siblings, and clearly differentiates from google_indexing_submit via the 'status' action vs submission.

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?

Implies usage pattern (checking status vs submitting) through the action verb and sibling name contrast, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or explicit comparison stating 'use this after submitting to verify status.'

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement and the outcome (fast crawling/indexing), but omits other behavioral traits such as API rate limits, quota restrictions, idempotency characteristics, or what constitutes a successful response.

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 consists of exactly two high-value sentences: one declaring purpose and effect, the second stating the hard requirement. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, and the critical constraint (service account auth) is prominently featured.

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 simple 3-parameter schema with 100% coverage and no output schema, the description is appropriately complete regarding inputs and side effects. However, it could be improved by briefly noting the return value or success indicators since no output schema exists to document the response.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage, the description adds crucial semantic specificity by clarifying that a 'service account' access token is required (not just any OAuth2 token), which is technically significant for the Google Indexing API. This compensates for the schema's more general 'OAuth2 access token' description.

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 specific action (Submit URLs), the target resource (Google Indexing API), and the benefit (fast crawling and indexing). It naturally distinguishes itself from the IndexNow siblings (indexnow_submit) by specifying 'Google Indexing API' and from google_indexing_status by using the verb 'Submit' versus checking 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 explicitly states the authentication prerequisite ('Requires a Google service account access token'), which defines when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with indexnow_submit to clarify when to use Google's API versus IndexNow, though the naming makes this relatively clear.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds crucial context about hosting the verification file at the domain root, but omits idempotency characteristics, side effects, or the structure of returned data given the missing output schema.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, while the second provides critical usage guidance without verbosity or unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers the generation purpose and hosting requirements. It could improve by briefly characterizing the return format (e.g., specifying that both key and file content are returned) since no output schema documents this.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the custom_key parameter, documenting its optional nature and UUID fallback. Since the schema fully describes the parameter, the description appropriately does not need to add redundant parameter details, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 states 'Generate an IndexNow API key and the verification file content,' providing a specific verb (Generate) and clear resources. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like indexnow_submit and google_indexing_submit, which perform URL submission rather than key generation setup.

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 includes essential post-invocation guidance: 'You need to host this file at your domain root.' However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance comparing it to alternatives or stating prerequisites such as 'use this before submitting URLs via indexnow_submit.'

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully indicates this is a read operation returning engine configurations, but omits details about network requirements, caching behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs that would help an agent understand the operational constraints.

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 consists of a single, efficient sentence with nine words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb and contains no redundant or wasted language, making it ideal for quick comprehension by an agent.

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 low complexity (zero inputs, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers the functional scope by specifying what data it returns (engines and endpoints). While an output schema would be ideal, the description sufficiently compensates by clarifying the return value for this simple discovery tool.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object. Per evaluation guidelines, 0-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description appropriately does not mention parameters since none exist, requiring no additional semantic clarification beyond what the trivial schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('IndexNow search engines and their API endpoints'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its siblings (indexnow_submit, indexnow_submit_sitemap, etc.) by positioning it as a discovery/listing operation rather than an action/submission operation.

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to invoke it versus alternatives. It does not indicate, for example, that this should be called before indexnow_submit to discover available endpoints, or whether the results are static reference data.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable operational constraints ('instant indexing', 'up to 10,000 URLs') but omits critical behavioral details: return value format, idempotency guarantees, rate limiting, error handling patterns, or confirmation that this is a non-destructive write operation.

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 tightly constructed sentences. First establishes action and beneficiaries; second provides batch constraint. Zero redundancy, front-loaded with core functionality, appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Adequate for basic invocation given rich input schema, but gaps remain due to missing output schema and annotations. Description should ideally disclose return value structure or success indicators for this external API submission tool.

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%, providing detailed parameter documentation (UUID format for api_key, URI format for urls, default behavior for engines). Description reinforces the 10,000 URL limit and lists target engines, but adds minimal semantic depth beyond what the comprehensive schema already provides.

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 provides specific verb ('Submit'), clear resource ('URLs to IndexNow'), and scope ('instant indexing on Bing, Yandex, Naver, Seznam'). Explicitly mentions the 10,000 URL batch limit, distinguishing operational scope from siblings like indexnow_submit_sitemap and google_indexing_submit.

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?

Implies usage context by listing target search engines (Bing, Yandex vs Google), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance comparing it to sibling indexnow_submit_sitemap or google_indexing_submit. No mention of prerequisites like API key generation (though sibling indexnow_generate_key exists).

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the happy-path workflow but omits error handling behavior, rate limiting, what happens if the sitemap is unreachable, or what the tool returns (no output schema exists). It does set expectations with 'instant indexing'.

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, efficient sentence of 12 words. Immediately front-loaded with the core action and scope. No redundant or wasted language.

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 5-parameter external API integration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary value proposition but leaves gaps. It should disclose what happens upon completion (success/failure indicators), handling of large sitemaps, or side effects of the IndexNow submission.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description implies usage of sitemap_url, api_key, and host through the workflow narrative but does not add semantic details, constraints, or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides for the 'engines' and 'limit' parameters.

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 uses specific verbs (Fetch, extract, submit) and clearly identifies the resource (sitemap XML → IndexNow). The 'sitemap' specificity clearly distinguishes this from the sibling 'indexnow_submit' tool which presumably handles individual URLs.

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 implies usage through the workflow (fetch sitemap → submit URLs), but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'indexnow_submit' for individual URLs, or prerequisites like generating an API key first via 'indexnow_generate_key'.

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