list_propertiesRetrieve all Google Search Console properties for a connected account, returning each site's URL and permission level for SEO analysis.
List the Search Console properties on the connected Google account. Returns siteUrl and permissionLevel exactly as the sites.list API returned them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'connected Google account' auth scope and a fidelity note that fields are returned 'exactly as the sites.list API returned them,' which is modest added value but not deep behavioral context (no pagination, no empty-account behavior).
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?
Two sentences, no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the return-value note. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it does not overreach. The only gap is the missing framing of this as the discovery step that supplies siteUrl inputs to sibling tools.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly implies a no-argument call.
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 description names a specific verb (List) and resource (Search Console properties on the connected Google account), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but none of the listed siblings (top_queries, inspect_url, account_status, etc.) also enumerate properties, so the distinction is reasonably clear from the resource alone.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step for finding which siteUrl values to pass to the other Search Console tools, but the description never states that. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.