search_console_sitemapsThe sitemaps submitted for a website: when Google last downloaded each one, how many URLs it lists, and its error and warning counts. Changes nothing: submitting a sitemap is done in Search Console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_url | Yes | Search Console property exactly as search_console_sites lists it, e.g. sc-domain:example.com or https://www.example.com/ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value by reinforcing the read-only nature ('changes nothing') and by disclosing the shape of the returned data (last download, URL count, error and warning counts), which matters since there is no output schema.
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 compact sentences with zero filler; the resource and returned fields come first, and the scope caveat follows. Nothing needs trimming.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the returned fields, and the read-only scope, which is most of what an agent needs. It could note that results cover all submitted sitemaps for the property (no pagination/filter params exist), but the gaps are minor.
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 100%; site_url is already documented with exact format examples (sc-domain:example.com) and a pointer to search_console_sites for the canonical value. The description's 'for a website' adds no syntax or format information beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description states the specific resource (sitemaps submitted for a website) and enumerates the data returned: last download time, URL count, and error/warning counts. It also draws a boundary against the write path ('submitting a sitemap is done in Search Console'), though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the other read siblings like search_console_sites or search_console_performance.
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?
'Changes nothing: submitting a sitemap is done in Search Console' gives an implicit when-not (do not use this to submit), but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool over the other Search Console read tools. Usage is inferable from the purpose but not spelled out.
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.