fleet_gsc_sitemapsSitemaps registered on the Search Console property with submitted vs indexed counts, last-download time, warnings and errors. The indexing-progress scoreboard — as of Jul 2026 the main sitemap had 2,432 submitted / 0 indexed. Track this as SEO fixes land. No parameters. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, making the behavior clear. The description confirms read-only and adds context about returned fields (counts, timestamps, warnings, errors) and a specific data example. This adds moderate value beyond 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 concise at two sentences plus a brief example. Every sentence provides essential information: what the tool does, what data it returns, an illustrative example, and constraints. No wasted words.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs: data content (submitted/indexed counts, last-download time, warnings/errors), a real-world example to calibrate expectations, and the read-only nature. No output schema needed.
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 with 100% schema coverage. The description explicitly states 'No parameters,' which is clear and sufficient. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description meets that.
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 tool retrieves sitemap indexing data from Search Console, including submitted vs indexed counts, timestamps, and errors. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like fleet_gsc_summary by focusing specifically on sitemaps, and mentions a concrete example that clarifies the output.
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 for tracking SEO fixes ('Track this as SEO fixes land.') and explicitly notes it has no parameters and is read-only. It does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools, but the context and sibling names make this inferable.
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.
Despite the high tool count, most tools have distinct purposes with thorough descriptions that specify when to use each. Some overlap exists among creative direction tools (call_creative_worlds vs chat_with_creative_worlds), but the descriptions clarify usage patterns.
Naming conventions are inconsistent overall: some follow verb_noun (create_powersource_url, decode_ad), others use noun_verb or compound names (adformula_intelligence, fleet_analytics_overview). However, subgroups like dispatch_* and list_*_presets maintain internal consistency.
112 tools is far beyond the typical 3-15 range for well-scoped servers. While the server covers a broad domain, the sheer number likely overwhelms agents and suggests insufficient consolidation of related operations.
The tool set covers core creative intelligence workflows: brand analysis, ad decoding, script generation, creative direction, and research. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no social media publishing tools), but the main use cases are well-supported.