mcp-seo-audit

get_sitemaps

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all sitemaps for a Google Search Console property, returning detailed info to audit indexing coverage and find missing or invalid sitemaps.

Instructions

List all sitemaps for a property with detailed info.

Args:
    site_url: Exact GSC property URL

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_sitemaps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond that — "detailed info" is vague and no return, pagination, or property-requirement context is provided, so it fails to add value over the structured fields.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, with the purpose stated first and the argument documented after. Nothing is wasted, though the "Args:" block is a thin restatement of the single schema field.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, "detailed info" is left undefined and there is no guidance on when this differs from the sitemap-analysis sibling, leaving the definition only minimally adequate for a one-parameter read tool.

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 the description must compensate. It does clarify that site_url is the "Exact GSC property URL," which is genuinely useful for callers, but this is the only parameter detail offered and no format example or matching rules 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 clear verb and resource ("List all sitemaps for a property") plus a scope qualifier ("with detailed info"). It distinguishes from submit_sitemap and delete_sitemap by being a read/list operation, but does not differentiate itself from the sibling analyze_sitemap, leaving one ambiguity unresolved.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as analyze_sitemap or list_properties. An agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server