Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SitemapKit MCP Server

SitemapKit MCP Server

by 0nl1n1n
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

discover_sitemaps

Find all sitemap URLs for a domain by checking robots.txt, common paths, and sitemap indexes. Returns a list of sitemap locations to reveal the site's structure.

Instructions

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.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "discover_sitemaps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe domain to check, e.g. 'https://example.com'. Only the domain is used — path is ignored.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools