Every sitemap submitted for this property, with its pending state, warnings, errors and indexed URL count. Google returns the whole list, so this is never a page: the pagination block reports truncated false and the count, which is how you can tell a complete list from a first page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral insight: Google returns the entire list, so the pagination block always reports truncated=false, which is how an agent distinguishes a complete list from a first page. It omits auth/permission requirements and read-only confirmation, but the pagination disclosure is unusually valuable.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and payload, then the pagination caveat. The second sentence is slightly dense but every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover returns itself; it does so by naming the fields and explaining pagination behavior. The remaining gap is the meaning of site_id, which is unaddressed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter site_id, and the description says only 'this property' without clarifying what form site_id takes or where it comes from. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (sitemaps for a property) and enumerates the return payload (pending state, warnings, errors, indexed URL count), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not name its write counterpart Submit_Sitemap, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives, including the obvious sibling Submit_Sitemap. The second sentence explains result shape, not when this tool is the right choice.
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.
