QuerySail: Google Search Console

List Search Console sitemaps

list_sitemaps

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks which sitemaps a site has in Search Console, whether Google read them, or whether they have errors or warnings. Lists the sitemaps submitted for one property with type, whether it is an index, pending status, last submitted and last read times, error and warning counts, and how many URLs each lists by content type. Pass sitemap_index to list the sitemaps inside a sitemap index. URL counts are listed URLs, not indexed URLs. Read-only; cannot submit, resubmit or delete sitemaps.

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": {
      "property_id": "<property_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_sitemaps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`property_id`	Yes	Exact property ID from list_properties, e.g. 'sc-domain:example.com' or 'https://example.com/'.
`connection_id`	No	Optional: force a specific Google connection when the property is visible to several.
`sitemap_index`	No	Optional: full URL of a sitemap index from a previous result, to list the sitemaps inside it.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notes`	No
`summary`	No
`property`	No
`sitemaps`	No
`freshness`	No
`sitemapIndex`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 11, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / requestId
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
First observedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them: the caveat that 'URL counts are listed URLs, not indexed URLs' and the fact that 'pending status' can appear — both interpretation-relevant details absent from the annotations. It does not discuss pagination or result limits for large sitemap sets.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Four tight sentences with the use-case triggers front-loaded, followed by return contents, the sitemap_index nesting hint, and the URL-count caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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?

For a simple read-only tool (3 params, 1 required, output schema present, annotations covering safety), the description covers purpose, triggers, nesting behavior, and the most likely misinterpretation of the counts. The only minor gap is result-set size/pagination behavior, which matters when a property has many sitemaps.

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 all three parameters (including property_id format and connection_id) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces sitemap_index's purpose ('from a previous result', listing nested sitemaps) but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource — lists the sitemaps submitted for one property in Search Console — and enumerates the returned dimensions (type, index flag, pending status, last submitted/read times, error and warning counts, URL counts by content type). This is clearly distinct from the siblings (performance, URL inspection, property listing), so an agent can route to it 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?

Opens with concrete user-question triggers ('which sitemaps a site has', 'whether Google read them', 'errors or warnings'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It also closes by bounding scope ('Read-only; cannot submit, resubmit or delete sitemaps'), but never names an alternative tool or a case where another tool should be preferred instead.

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

All QuerySail: Google Search Console 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.