Skip to main content
Glama
MoonEyes

google-ecommerce-mcp

by MoonEyes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Search Console sitemaps

gsc_sitemaps
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve sitemaps declared in Google Search Console, including last submission and download dates, errors, and warnings to diagnose indexing issues.

Instructions

Sitemaps declared in Search Console, with last submission, last download, errors and warnings.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_urlNoSearch Console property, e.g. sc-domain:example.com or https://www.example.com/; empty uses the configured GSC_SITE_URL (or the client's site). With a client registry it must be one of the client's sites
client_idNoClient id from clients_list. Required when several clients are registered; empty uses the only client (or the environment variables when there is no client registry)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / client_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Client id from clients_list. Required when several clients are registered; empty uses the only client (or the environment variables when there is no client registry)",
+  "title": "Client Id"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / site_url
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Search Console property, e.g. sc-domain:example.com or https://www.example.com/; empty uses the configured GSC_SITE_URL (or the client's site). With a client registry it must be one of the client's sites",
+  "title": "Site Url",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the returned fields (submission/download timestamps, errors, warnings), which matters since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about auth requirements beyond the schema, rate limits, or whether sitemap data can be stale.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the most important content (what sitemaps and which fields) comes first. It is efficient, though the noun-phrase form leaves the action verb implicit.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the definition is adequate: it tells the agent what data comes back. It stops short of explaining scope (single property at a time), result limits, or how it relates to the sibling sitemap-submission 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 100%, so both site_url and client_id are fully documented in the schema, including the fallback behavior and client-registry constraint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the specific resource (sitemaps declared in Search Console) and enumerates the data surfaced: last submission, last download, errors, warnings. The retrieval verb is only implied ('Sitemaps declared in...'), and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like gsc_sites or gsc_plan_sitemap_submit, but an agent can tell this is the sitemap-status read.

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 alternatives named. It never says to use gsc_plan_sitemap_submit for submitting a sitemap or gsc_sites for property listing, so routing between the GSC read tools is left entirely to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools