Skip to main content
Glama

Write a disavow file for Google

disavow_file
Read-onlyIdempotent

Write the disavow file for Google's disavow links tool (https://search.google.com/search-console/disavow-links). Google has no API to upload it, so you give the user the file and they upload it themselves. Disavowing is rarely needed and can lower rankings when good links are thrown away: use it after a manual action for unnatural links in Search Console, or for links the site clearly paid for or built in a scheme; Google already ignores ordinary spam links, so a high spam score alone is not a reason. Pass the domains (whole sites, the usual choice) and/or single URLs to disavow, each with a short reason, from the user's backlink data (Ahrefs, Semrush, SE Ranking, bing_backlinks, an attached export). Each upload REPLACES the list Google has, so if the user already uploaded one, ask them to download it from the tool and pass it as current: this tool keeps its lines and adds the new ones. remove takes lines back out (links the user no longer wants disavowed). Answers with the whole file, what was added, kept and dropped, and how to upload it. It works only for a URL-prefix property in Search Console (https://www.example.com/), not a Domain property.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesThe site the links point to, like https://www.example.com (its own domain is never disavowed)
urlsNoSingle linking pages to disavow, full addresses
reasonNoReason for the entries that have none of their own, like "paid links, manual action 2026-10"
removeNoDomains or URLs to take out of current
sourceNoWhere the list came from, written at the top of the new part, like "Ahrefs export 2026-10-09"
currentNoThe file Google has now, as text (Search Console's disavow tool downloads it), so its lines are kept
domainsNoLinking sites to disavow whole, as a name (spam.example) or an address on it; with a reason each when you can

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that each upload REPLACES Google's list, that the tool merges by keeping the 'current' lines, what remove does, that Google has no upload API so the user must upload manually, and that it only works for URL-prefix properties (not Domain properties). It also states the response contents (whole file, added/kept/dropped, upload instructions). No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true, since the server itself performs no remote mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One dense paragraph with zero filler sentences and a front-loaded purpose and link, but it is long and would scan better with the when-to-use and merge/replace behavior split into sentences or bullets. Every sentence earns its place, so it stops short of a structure problem.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, it covers everything an agent needs: the manual-upload workflow, replace-vs-merge semantics, the property-type restriction, and the fact that the response includes the full file plus upload instructions. Nothing material is left to inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'domains (whole sites, the usual choice)' flags the default choice, 'single URLs to disavow, full addresses' disambiguates urls, 'current' is explained as the file Google has now whose lines are kept, and remove is described as taking lines back out. It adds nuance beyond the schema, though it does not restate every field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Write the disavow file for Google's disavow links tool'), names the exact external artifact it targets, and no sibling tool does anything similar, so it is trivially distinguishable. The follow-on sentence clarifies it produces a file the user uploads manually, removing any ambiguity about what 'write' means here.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly gives when to use (after a manual action for unnatural links, or links clearly paid for/built in a scheme) and when not to use ('Google already ignores ordinary spam links, so a high spam score alone is not a reason'), plus the alternative behavior Google applies on its own. This is exactly the when/when-not guidance the dimension asks for.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources