:
List all sitemaps for a specific Search Console property.
Args:
site_url: Exact GSC property URL from list_properties (e.g. "https://example.com/" or
"sc-domain:example.com"). Domain properties cover all subdomains — use the
domain property as site_url and filter by page to analyze a specific subdomain.| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It adds useful behavioral context about domain properties covering subdomains, but fails to disclose return format, pagination behavior, or error conditions since no output schema exists.
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?
Well-structured with purpose front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by Args documentation. Every sentence adds value—no repetition of schema metadata or tautology. Efficient use of space.
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 single-parameter input, the description adequately covers input semantics. However, without an output schema or return value description, the agent cannot know what format the sitemap list takes (objects vs URLs), leaving a significant gap for a 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?
Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. The description provides the parameter source ('list_properties'), exact format requirements, concrete examples ('https://example.com/' vs 'sc-domain:example.com'), and semantic behavior regarding domain properties.
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 opens with a clear verb-resource statement ('List all sitemaps for a specific Search Console property'). However, it fails to differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_sitemaps_enhanced', leaving ambiguity about which listing tool to use.
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 provides valuable parameter sourcing guidance ('from list_properties') and explains domain property behavior, but lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance regarding siblings like 'list_sitemaps_enhanced' or 'get_sitemap_details'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AminForou/mcp-gsc'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server