mcp-seo-audit

delete_sitemap

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a sitemap from Google Search Console to stop tracking outdated or incorrect sitemap URLs. Use it to unsubmit a sitemap from a specific GSC property.

Instructions

Delete (unsubmit) a sitemap from Google Search Console.

Args:
    site_url: Exact GSC property URL
    sitemap_url: Full URL of the sitemap to delete

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_url": "<site_url>",
      "sitemap_url": "<sitemap_url>"
    },
    "name": "delete_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_url`	Yes
`sitemap_url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The parenthetical '(unsubmit)' adds real value by clarifying the sitemap file is not deleted, only its GSC submission removed, but nothing about permissions or immediate effect is disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One-line purpose followed by a compact two-item Args block; front-loaded and free of filler. The Args list duplicates schema property names, but given 0% schema coverage that repetition is justified.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and both parameters are documented. The only gap is behavioral context such as required write permission on the GSC property, which the description omits.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it defines site_url as the 'Exact GSC property URL' and sitemap_url as the 'Full URL of the sitemap to delete'. This meaningfully compensates for the bare schema, though no URL format examples are given.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete (unsubmit) a sitemap from Google Search Console') that an agent can distinguish from submit_sitemap and get_sitemaps. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation rests on the verb alone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no statement of when to use this versus get_sitemaps (inspect) or submit_sitemap (add), nor any prerequisites or warnings about the destructive effect. The 'unsubmit' parenthetical hints at intent but provides no routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server