gsc_list_sitemapsList the sitemaps submitted for a property, including last download time, warnings/errors, and indexed counts. Use to audit sitemap health.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The property URL exactly as listed by gsc_list_sites |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns 'last download time, warnings/errors, and indexed counts'. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or the fact that only submitted sitemaps are listed.
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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence clearly states functionality, the second states use case. Perfectly front-loaded.
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?
Given the simple nature (1 param, rich annotations), the description covers the main purpose and output fields. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning the format or any limits, but it is sufficient for a straightforward listing tool.
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 coverage is 100% with a good description for siteUrl. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 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 verb 'list' and the resource 'sitemaps submitted for a property', including specific data fields. It distinguishes from siblings like gsc_list_sites and gsc_search_analytics.
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 specifies 'Use to audit sitemap health', giving clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the sibling list provides context.
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 set has several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, multiple polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) occupy the same prediction-market space, and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. A few tools (memory triad, gsc_* calls) are crisp, but the boundaries between the meta-research tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, validate_claim) are not obvious enough to prevent misselection.
Naming is a mixed bag: some tools follow snake_case verb_noun (gsc_list_sites, resolve_entity, search_within), others are lowercased concatenations (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and several are bare nouns or adjectives (recent_alerts, forget, recall, process). There is no consistent verb style or separator convention across the set.
35 tools is already heavy, but the bigger problem is that only 4 of them (gsc_list_sites, gsc_list_sitemaps, gsc_inspect_url, gsc_search_analytics) relate to the server's stated Google Search Console purpose. The remaining 31 are a sprawling Pipeworx data/prediction-market/memory toolkit, making the count wildly disproportionate to the apparent scope.
For a Google Search Console server, the surface is severely incomplete: it can list sites/sitemaps, inspect URLs, and query analytics, but lacks sitemap submission, property add/remove, URL removal/access control, and other core GSC operations. Conversely, the 31 off-domain tools make the domain itself incoherent — an agent cannot tell what this server is actually for.