gsc-mcp

sitemaps_delete

Remove a submitted sitemap from Google Search Console tracking. Requires a sitemap URL ending with .xml or containing '/sitemap'.

Instructions

Delete a submitted sitemap from a GSC property.

Requires the URL to end with '.xml' or contain '/sitemap' as a safety guard against accidental deletion. Removes the entry from GSC tracking only; does not delete the sitemap file.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "sitemap_url": "<sitemap_url>"
    },
    "name": "sitemaps_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes
`sitemap_url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Jun 22, 2026

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 bears full burden. Discloses the safety guard (URL validation), the destructive scope (removes from tracking only), and that the actual file is not deleted. This goes beyond the schema's parameter types.

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?

Three short sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, safety guard, and limitation. Efficiently front-loaded with the core action.

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 the tool's simplicity (two required params, destructive but safe) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essential behavior, safety, and scope. Could mention site format (e.g., URL format for GSC property) 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 description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. For 'sitemap_url', it adds validation rule (ends with .xml or contains /sitemap). For 'site', no extra info is provided, leaving its semantics implicit.

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 explicitly states 'Delete a submitted sitemap from a GSC property', which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like submit_sitemap (add) and list_sitemaps (list) by focusing on deletion.

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?

Provides context for safe usage: requires URL to end with '.xml' or contain '/sitemap' as a safety guard. Also clarifies what is not affected: 'Removes the entry from GSC tracking only; does not delete the sitemap file.' Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the guard and limitation are clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server