Skip to main content
Glama
0nl1n1n

SitemapKit MCP Server

by 0nl1n1n
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each 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.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    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.

    Tool Count5/5

    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.

    Completeness5/5

    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.

  • Average 4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

    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.

    Conciseness5/5

    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.

    Completeness4/5

    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.

    Parameters3/5

    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.

    Purpose5/5

    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.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    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.

  • Behavior3/5

    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.

    Conciseness5/5

    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.

    Completeness4/5

    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.

    Parameters3/5

    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.

    Purpose5/5

    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.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    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.

  • Behavior4/5

    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.

    Conciseness5/5

    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.

    Completeness4/5

    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.

    Parameters3/5

    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.

    Purpose5/5

    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.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    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.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

sitemapkit-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

sitemapkit-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

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