Google Search Console MCP + Bing Webmaster Tools

Submit a sitemap to Google and Bing

submit_sitemap

Idempotent

Free URL submission: resubmit a sitemap to Google Search Console and Bing Webmaster Tools so both engines recrawl your pages. Resubmitting the same sitemap is safe. Free.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sitemapUrl": "<sitemapUrl>"
    },
    "name": "submit_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`engines`	No	Where to submit: google (Search Console), bing (Bing Webmaster Tools) or both. Default both.
`sitemapUrl`	Yes	Absolute URL of the XML sitemap or sitemap index.
`bingSiteUrl`	No	Bing site URL when it differs from the sitemap's origin plus a trailing slash.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`results`	Yes
`nextStep`	No	Optional suggestion for the user's next step. Mention it once when it helps; never open it or act on it automatically.
`sitemapUrl`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / nextStep

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Optional suggestion for the user's next step. Mention it once when it helps; never open it or act on it automatically.",
+  "properties": {
+    "label": {
+      "description": "Short suggestion to show the user.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "description": "Page in the user's CrakSEO account.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "label",
+    "url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, destructive=false, and the description's 'resubmitting is safe' reinforces idempotency in plain language. But it omits real behavioral context: the Search Console/Bing Webmaster account authorization needed, and the existence of submission quotas (suggested by the sibling get_bing_url_submission_quota) — 'Free' alone does not address rate limits.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, but 'Free URL submission:' as a prefix and the trailing one-word 'Free.' are marketing repetition that adds no decision-relevant information. Reasonably sized but with wasted tokens.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for an openWorld write tool the description lacks prerequisites (connected Search Console/Bing accounts) and quota behavior, which an agent needs to set expectations for failure.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents sitemapUrl, engines, and bingSiteUrl fully. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., when the bingSiteUrl override is needed) beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('resubmit a sitemap') plus the two destinations (Google Search Console, Bing Webmaster Tools) and the effect (recrawl). An agent can distinguish it from list_sitemaps or inspect_url_in_google by the write-to-engines nature, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Resubmit ... so both engines recrawl your pages' implies the use case (refresh crawl of existing sitemap), and 'Resubmitting the same sitemap is safe' signals repeat use is acceptable. However, no explicit when-not conditions or alternatives (e.g., when to use inspect_url_in_google instead) are given.

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

All Google Search Console MCP + Bing Webmaster Tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?