This server lets MCP-compatible AI assistants discover and extract sitemaps from any website using SitemapKit.
discover_sitemaps: Find all sitemap files for a domain by checking robots.txt, common paths, and sitemap indexes.
extract_sitemap: Extract all URLs from a specific sitemap file, including child sitemaps from indexes, with optional metadata like lastmod, changefreq, and priority.
full_crawl: Discover all sitemaps for a domain and extract every URL across all of them in one call, returning deduplicated URLs.
Works with MCP clients such as Claude Desktop, Cursor, and Windsurf.
Each response includes a meta.quota field showing remaining monthly requests based on your SitemapKit plan.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@SitemapKit MCP Server Find all sitemaps for stripe.com"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Give AI agents a reliable XML sitemap crawler through the Model Context Protocol (MCP). SitemapKit discovers sitemap files, parses nested sitemap indexes, and extracts deduplicated page URLs for SEO audits, content inventories, research, and agent workflows.
Works with MCP-compatible clients including Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, and other AI assistants that support local stdio servers.
Tool | Description |
| Find all sitemap files for a domain (checks robots.txt, common paths, sitemap indexes) |
| Extract all URLs from a specific sitemap file |
| Discover + extract all URLs across all sitemaps in one call |
Related MCP server: Webpage MCP Server
Sign up at sitemapkit.com and grab your API key from app.sitemapkit.com/settings/api.
Add to ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"sitemapkit": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "sitemapkit-mcp"],
"env": {
"SITEMAPKIT_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
}
}
}
}Add to .cursor/mcp.json in your project (or the global ~/.cursor/mcp.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"sitemapkit": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "sitemapkit-mcp"],
"env": {
"SITEMAPKIT_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
}
}
}
}Add to ~/.codeium/windsurf/mcp_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"sitemapkit": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "sitemapkit-mcp"],
"env": {
"SITEMAPKIT_API_KEY": "your-api-key-here"
}
}
}
}Once configured, you can ask your AI assistant:
"Find all sitemaps for stripe.com"
"Extract every URL from https://example.com/sitemap.xml"
"Get the full URL list for shopify.com, up to 5000 URLs"
This MCP server is designed for on-demand discovery and extraction. To watch a website continuously, detect newly published pages, and send signed webhook alerts, use SitemapKit Monitoring.
The free plan includes one daily monitor. Paid plans add more websites, higher URL limits, and checks as often as every hour. See the webhook documentation for payloads, signatures, and retry behavior.
Limits depend on your SitemapKit plan. The meta.quota field in each response tells you how many requests you have remaining this month.
Plan | API requests/month | URLs per extraction |
Free | 100 | 1,000 |
Starter | 5,000 | 10,000 |
Pro | 50,000 | 50,000 |
See current API and monitoring allowances on the pricing page.
MIT
Find all sitemap files for a given domain by checking robots.txt, common paths, and sitemap indexes. Returns a list of sitemap URLs. Use this first to understand a site's sitemap structure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The domain to check, e.g. 'https://example.com'. Only the domain is used — path is ignored. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses the method (checking robots.txt, common paths, sitemap indexes) and notes that only the domain is used, not the path. This is adequate transparency for a simple discovery tool.
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 with no waste. First sentence describes functionality, second gives usage guidance. Efficient and 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?
With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains return value (list of sitemap URLs) and discovery method. The recommendation to use it first adds valuable context relative to sibling tools.
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% and schema already explains the 'url' parameter well. Description adds little beyond reinforcing domain-only scope; 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 tool finds sitemap files for a domain using robots.txt, common paths, and sitemap indexes, and returns URLs. It distinguishes from siblings by recommending its use first.
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?
Explicitly advises 'Use this first to understand a site's sitemap structure', giving clear context for when to employ this tool relative to alternatives like extract_sitemap or full_crawl.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Extract all URLs from a specific sitemap file (including sitemap indexes that link to child sitemaps). Returns URL entries with optional lastmod, changefreq, and priority metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The full URL of the sitemap file, e.g. 'https://example.com/sitemap.xml'. | |
| max_urls | No | Maximum number of URLs to return. Defaults to 1000. Max allowed by your plan. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool handles sitemap indexes and returns metadata, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only. This is adequate but not thorough.
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 with no extraneous information. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds return details. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the input (sitemap URL), boundaries (handles indexes), and output (URLs with metadata). Missing explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings, but overall 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters (url, max_urls). The description adds context about sitemap indexes and return metadata but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. 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 tool's function: extracting all URLs from a specific sitemap file, including sitemap indexes. It distinguishes itself from siblings like discover_sitemaps (which finds sitemaps) and full_crawl (which performs a broader crawl) by specifying it acts on a given sitemap URL.
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 implies when to use the tool (when you have a specific sitemap URL) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. Siblings are listed but not contrasted, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Discover all sitemaps for a domain and extract every URL across all of them in one call. This is the most convenient tool when you want the complete URL list for a site. Returns deduplicated URLs with metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The domain to crawl, e.g. 'https://example.com'. | |
| max_urls | No | Maximum number of URLs to return. Defaults to 1000. Max allowed by your plan. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions discovering sitemaps, extracting URLs, and deduplication, but lacks details on rate limits, concurrency, destructive actions, or permissions. Adequate but not deeply transparent.
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, about 30 words, front-loaded with the core action. No filler or redundancy.
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 simple input schema (two params, no enums) and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it returns deduplicated URLs with metadata. Missing explicit output structure is acceptable for low complexity.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool discovers all sitemaps and extracts every URL, providing a complete URL list for a domain. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'discover_sitemaps' and 'extract_sitemap' by combining both actions in one call.
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 explicitly says 'This is the most convenient tool when you want the complete URL list for a site,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tools imply alternatives for partial tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.0discover_sitemapsextract_sitemapfull_crawlEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose: discover_sitemaps finds sitemap URLs, extract_sitemap extracts URLs from a specific sitemap, and full_crawl combines both. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names use a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., discover_sitemaps, extract_sitemap, full_crawl). The names are clear and follow the same style.
Three tools is well-scoped for a server focused on sitemap discovery and URL extraction. Each tool serves a distinct need without being excessive or insufficient.
The tool set covers the full workflow: discovering sitemaps, extracting from a single sitemap, and a convenient combined crawl. There are no obvious missing operations for this domain.
Generate 18 AI readiness files (llms.txt, ai.txt, RAG indexes, schema) for any website.
SEO research, audits, backlinks, GSC, and content workflow tools for AI agents.
Web search, URL content extraction to Markdown, site mapping, and recursive web crawler.
Checks llms.txt, AI crawler access in robots.txt, and sitemap - with a 0-100 AI readiness score.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/0nl1n1n/sitemapkit-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
