list_sitemapsSitemaps submitted for the property and their status, from Google's Sitemaps API. Read-only: submitting is not possible with read access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | No | Search Console property, exactly as list_sites reports it (sc-domain:example.com or https://example.com/). Optional when the account has only one property. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a concrete operational limitation: submitting sitemaps is not possible with read access. It also names the external Google Sitemaps API source, adding useful context beyond the structured annotations.
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 two sentences with no redundancy: the first identifies the resource and data returned, and the second clarifies the read-only constraint. It is concise and front-loaded.
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 one optional parameter and annotations covering the read-only/non-destructive profile, the description is nearly complete. It conveys the main output (submitted sitemaps and status) but does not detail the response shape or status values, which would be more critical without an output schema.
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 schema documents the single optional 'site' parameter with its exact format and optionality, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds the property framing but no new detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?
The description states that the tool returns sitemaps submitted for a property and their status, tying it to Google's Sitemaps API. It clearly identifies the resource and scope, and the tool can be distinguished from siblings like list_sites by the sitemap-specific focus, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 its use case: viewing submitted sitemaps in a read-only context, and it explicitly says submission is not possible with read access. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over siblings or provide explicit exclusion criteria, leaving usage guidance mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.