Retrieve official Search Console details for a submitted sitemap to verify its status, errors, and indexing signals for a specific site property.
Detalle oficial de un sitemap enviado a Search Console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | URL exacta de la propiedad verificada. | |
| sitemapUrl | Yes | URL completa que pertenece al sitio. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the words 'oficial' and 'enviado', which hint at data provenance but say nothing about what is returned or what happens when the sitemap is not found. Against annotation coverage the bar is low, yet almost no extra context is supplied.
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?
A single short sentence with no padding, but it is a bare fragment rather than a front-loaded structured statement. Nothing is wasted, yet the few words present do little work.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should indicate what a 'sitemap detail' contains (submitted vs. indexed counts, last download time, errors/warnings, sitemap type). It also fails to say what happens for an unsubmitted sitemap. For a lookup tool with two mandatory parameters, this leaves the agent under-informed.
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 100% with only two required string parameters, so the schema already carries the burden of documenting siteUrl and sitemapUrl. The description adds no additional meaning about their relationship or format, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
It names a specific resource (a sitemap submitted to Search Console) and implies a detail/retrieval operation, so the agent can guess the general intent. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from the sibling gsc_sitemaps, which plausibly lists the same resource. Purpose is inferable rather than stated.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool instead of gsc_sitemaps, or of any precondition such as the sitemap having been previously submitted or the property being verified. The agent must infer the distinction 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.