gsc_submit_sitemapSubmit or resubmit a sitemap URL to Google Search Console, prompting search engines to crawl and index your site's content.
Submit (or resubmit) a sitemap URL for a property.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | Search Console property, e.g. 'sc-domain:example.com' (see gsc_list_sites). | |
| feedpath | Yes | Absolute sitemap URL, e.g. 'https://example.com/sitemap.xml'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Input schema / properties / siteUrl / descriptionPrevious value: -"Search Console property, e.g. 'sc-domain:example.com' or 'https://example.com/' (see gsc_list_sites)."New value: +"Search Console property, e.g. 'sc-domain:example.com' (see gsc_list_sites)."v0.5.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / siteUrl / descriptionPrevious value: -"Property URL exactly as shown in Search Console, e.g. 'https://example.com/' or 'sc-domain:example.com'. Use gsc_list_sites to discover it."New value: +"Search Console property, e.g. 'sc-domain:example.com' or 'https://example.com/' (see gsc_list_sites)."v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (write operation), idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description's 'submit (or resubmit)' aligns with idempotency, but it adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, rate limits, or failure modes. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
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 a single, efficient sentence with the core action and scope front-loaded. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.
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 idempotent, non-destructive write tool with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It does not explain return values (not required) or prerequisites, but the simplicity and annotations cover the essentials. A small gap is the lack of mention that the property must be already added to Search Console, which is implied by the siteUrl format.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (siteUrl and feedpath) with examples. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is correct.
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 action (submit or resubmit) and the resource (sitemap URL for a property). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like gsc_list_sitemaps (listing) and gsc_delete_sitemap (deletion), which an agent can infer from the verb choice.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to list existing sitemaps, when to delete one, or any prerequisites (e.g., property must exist). The schema hints at gsc_list_sites for the siteUrl format but does not clarify usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.