Retrieve official details for a submitted sitemap in Search Console using its property and sitemap URLs. Use it to verify sitemap status, errors, and indexing data.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only nature, required permissions, error behavior when the sitemap is not found, or what 'oficial' data is returned. It only implies that data comes from Search Console, which is minimal.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no wasted clauses, so it is structurally clean and front-loaded. But it is under-specified rather than concise: the word 'oficial' contributes little, and the sentence is too thin to be genuinely useful.
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?
For a two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description never explains what detail is actually returned or under what conditions the call fails. The schema covers the inputs, but the output and edge cases are left entirely undocumented.
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% and both parameters (siteUrl, sitemapUrl) are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter format or how the two URLs relate, merely repeating the sitemap concept.
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 phrase 'Detalle oficial de un sitemap enviado a Search Console' names a specific resource (a sitemap) and its scope (one submitted to Search Console), which is far more precise than a tautology. However it uses a noun phrase with no verb and never differentiates itself from the sibling gsc_sitemaps (listing) tool, so an agent must infer that this returns a single sitemap's detail rather than a collection.
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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (e.g. the site must be verified, the sitemap must already be submitted), and no reference to any alternative such as gsc_sitemaps. The agent receives no routing signal at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.