Registers a site URL in Google Search Console properties to start tracking search performance and indexing status.
Add a site to your Search Console properties.
Args:
site_url: The URL of the site to add (e.g. https://example.com or sc-domain:example.com)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description is not required to restate it. However, the description adds nothing behavioral beyond those hints — it doesn't say whether adding an already-registered site is a no-op (which idempotentHint implies), what permissions are needed, or when the addition takes effect. For a mutation tool it is thin.
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?
Front-loaded with the purpose in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block. Slightly formulaic but nothing is wasted, and the format examples earn their place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single common case is covered. Still missing are edge behaviors (duplicate site, permission/verification errors) that matter for a mutation tool with no usage guidance.
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 0% and the schema only declares site_url as a bare string, so the description carries the burden — and it does so well by giving concrete format examples ('https://example.com' or 'sc-domain:example.com'). This is exactly the added semantics the schema lacks.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a site to your Search Console properties'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_site and list_properties. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the purpose is unmistakable.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. verification requirements), and no mention of what happens if the site already exists. The agent must infer usage entirely from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.