searchconsole-mcp

Delete a sitemap

gsc_delete_sitemap

Remove a sitemap from a Search Console property to stop URL submission. Deleting a sitemap does not deindex already indexed pages.

Instructions

Remove a sitemap from a property. Pages already indexed are not deindexed by this.

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": {
      "feedpath": "<feedpath>"
    },
    "name": "gsc_delete_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteUrl`	No	Falls back to GSC_DEFAULT_SITE
`feedpath`	Yes	Sitemap URL to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key consequence that indexed pages are not deindexed, which is valuable, but it does not mention whether the action is reversible, what permission or property requirements exist, or what happens if the sitemap does not exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the crucial non-deindexing caveat is packed into the second sentence without excessive wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple deletion tool, the description plus fully documented schema is largely sufficient. The lack of annotations and output schema is partially mitigated by the explicit consequence statement, though a bit more context about preconditions or return behavior would make it fully complete.

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 the parameters are already documented. The tool description adds no additional insight about feedpath or siteUrl beyond what the schema already states, so it earns the baseline score without extra credit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the specific verb 'Remove' and the exact resource ('a sitemap') scoped to 'a property', making the action unambiguous. The second sentence additionally distinguishes this from deindexing content, which prevents confusion with broader content-removal operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly establishes the context for use: removing a sitemap from a property. It also implicitly excludes the deindexing use case, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool like gsc_submit_sitemap or gsc_list_sitemaps for contrast.

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

Deploy Server