List all submitted sitemaps for a property, including submission date, last download time, URL counts, and any errors or warnings. Requires Google Search Console to be connected. Direct the user to rankparse.com/dashboard/integrations to connect it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Property URL e.g. "https://example.com" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it requires GSC connectivity and lists specific return fields (submission date, last download time, URL counts, errors/warnings). This goes beyond the annotations' scope and helps set expectations.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides a necessary prerequisite and actionable instruction. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, what data is returned, and the integration prerequisite. It could mention pagination or error behavior, but given the simplicity, this is nearly complete.
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?
The only parameter 'site' is fully documented in the schema with an example. The description uses 'property' as a synonym but adds no additional semantic information beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List all submitted sitemaps for a property' with specific data points (submission date, last download time, URL counts, errors/warnings). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sitemap or get_gsc_top_pages.
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?
The description provides clear usage context by noting the prerequisite: 'Requires Google Search Console to be connected.' It also directs users to connect via a specific URL if needed. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, the context is clear enough for an agent to know when to use this tool.
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.
The tool set is largely well-disambiguated with clear prefixes (get_, outreach_, zeekeo_) and detailed descriptions for each tool. Some tools like get_site_explorer and get_site_health could be confused at a glance, but their descriptions clearly separate their purposes. Overall, the naming and descriptions prevent meaningful ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent get_ prefix for data retrieval, with sub-prefixes like get_gsc_, get_page_, and outreach_/zeekeo_ for distinct workflows. There is no mixing of naming conventions (e.g., camelCase) or inconsistent verb usage. The naming pattern is uniform and predictable.
With 63 tools, this server vastly exceeds the typical 3-15 tool scope, categorizing as an extreme overflow. Even for a comprehensive SEO and outreach suite, the sheer number is overwhelming and likely includes redundant or overlapping functionality. This would be confusing for agents and users alike.
The tool set covers a wide range of SEO, backlink analysis, Google Search Console data, and outreach workflows, appearing nearly complete for its stated purpose. However, several tools are marked as 'v1 stub' (e.g., get_internal_links, get_schema_markup), indicating incomplete functionality. Despite these gaps, the overall coverage is extensive and well-rounded.
