Skip to main content
Glama

SEO GSC Wizard MCP

Add a property to GSC Wizard

add_site

Registers a GSC property the user already has access to (in Google Search Console) inside GSC Wizard. The property URL must appear in Search Console and be VERIFIED for the connected Google account: an unverified property is rejected, because Google refuses every data request for one. It is not provisioned by this call. Pass a URL prefix (https://example.com/) or a domain property (sc-domain:example.com); the scheme and host are matched case-insensitively and a missing trailing slash is added. Adding a property that is already registered is not an error: the result has alreadyRegistered: true and the existing row (with activated, as in list_sites).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNo
siteUrlYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteNo
messageNo
accountRepairedNo
alreadyRegisteredNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
    • changedOutput schema / properties / site / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -falseNew value: +true
  2. Changed9 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / accountRepaired
      Added value: +{
      +  "$ref": "#/properties/alreadyRegistered"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / alreadyRegistered
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": [
      +    "boolean",
      +    "null"
      +  ]
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / message
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": [
      +    "string",
      +    "null"
      +  ]
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / site / properties / activated
      Added value: +{
      +  "$ref": "#/properties/alreadyRegistered"
      +}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / site / properties / connectedAt / $ref
      Previous value: -"#/properties/site/properties/id"New value: +"#/properties/message"
    • addedOutput schema / properties / site / properties / id / $ref
      Added value: +"#/properties/message"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / site / properties / id / type
      Removed value: -[
      -  "string",
      -  "null"
      -]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / site / properties / permissionLevel / $ref
      Previous value: -"#/properties/site/properties/id"New value: +"#/properties/message"
    • changedOutput schema / properties / site / properties / siteUrl / $ref
      Previous value: -"#/properties/site/properties/id"New value: +"#/properties/message"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true); the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: rejection semantics for unverified properties, idempotent success with alreadyRegistered: true, and URL normalization (case-insensitive scheme/host, trailing slash added). This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Purpose and the key precondition are front-loaded, and each sentence carries distinct information (precondition, non-provisioning, URL formats, idempotency). It is slightly dense, but there is no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description still notes alreadyRegistered for the idempotent case. The one real gap is the undocumented `tags` parameter, which an agent would have to guess at.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It thoroughly documents siteUrl (URL prefix vs sc-domain form, case-insensitivity, trailing-slash normalization), but the second parameter `tags` is never mentioned, leaving it undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (registers) and resource (a GSC property the user already has access to) inside GSC Wizard, and explicitly contrasts it with provisioning ('It is not provisioned by this call'), which cleanly separates it from create_gsc_property. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear preconditions: the property must already appear in Search Console and be VERIFIED for the connected account, and an unverified property is rejected. It also explains idempotent behavior when the property is already registered. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool (e.g., create_gsc_property) for unverified or new properties.

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