Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gsc-mcp

gsc-mcp

by FlorianBruniaux
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sitemaps_get

Retrieve detailed metrics for a submitted sitemap, including URL, image, and video counts, plus error and warning counts and status flags.

Instructions

Get details for a specific sitemap already submitted to a GSC property.

Returns content type counts (URLs, images, videos), error and warning counts, and status flags.

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_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes
sitemap_urlYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description adequately discloses that this is a read operation returning specific data. It does not state side effects, authentication, or error handling, but for a simple GET tool, the behavioral insight is sufficient.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists the return fields. There is no wasted verbiage, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return values but omits parameter explanations. For a simple tool with two required params, this lack of parameter documentation leaves a gap in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to explain the meaning or format of the two required parameters ('site' and 'sitemap_url'). The field names alone may not be sufficiently self-explanatory, especially for an agent.

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 retrieves details for a specific sitemap, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_sitemaps (which lists all sitemaps) and sitemap_audit (which performs broader analysis). It specifies the return data: content type counts, error/warning counts, and status flags.

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 usage context by stating 'already submitted to a GSC property,' but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions or sibling tool differentiation are mentioned.

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