mcp-seo-audit

submit_sitemap

Submit or resubmit a sitemap URL to Google Search Console to help Google discover and index your site pages.

Instructions

Submit or resubmit a sitemap to Google.

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

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": "submit_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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that resubmission is supported and that the property URL must be exact, which is genuinely useful. It does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior, or what the response confirms.

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?

Two lines total: one action sentence followed by an Args list. Front-loaded and waste-free, though the Args block is a restatement of the schema parameter names rather than a tightening of them.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. What is missing is the exactness requirement for the site_url format beyond the word 'Exact', plus any hint about what happens when the property doesn't match or the sitemap is invalid.

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 carries the burden of explaining both parameters. The Args block does so meaningfully ('Exact GSC property URL' and 'Full URL of the sitemap'), though the annotations on format are terse and no examples are given for either URL shape.

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: 'Submit or resubmit a sitemap to Google.' That distinguishes it from get_sitemaps, delete_sitemap, and analyze_sitemap by action, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of related siblings (e.g., analyze_sitemap to validate before submitting, or delete_sitemap). The 'resubmit' wording implies an update case but never states it as a condition.

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

Deploy Server