Google Sites MCP

by RXDG2908

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Add a page to the open site

gsites_add_page

Adds a new page with a specified name to an open Google Sites editor, enabling site structure updates during editing.

Instructions

Workflow: in the open Sites editor, open the Pages panel and add a new page with the given name. Requires an editor tab open (gsites_create_site, or gsites_open with an /edit URL).

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "gsites_add_page"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Page name, e.g. 'Proyectos'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that this is UI automation against a live editor and that it fails without the right tab state, which the hints alone don't convey. It does not say what happens when a page of that name already exists or whether the editor navigates to the new page, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the workflow and followed by the prerequisite. Every clause carries operational information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what to do and what state is required. Only edge-case behavior (duplicate names, post-add navigation or verification) is left unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the name parameter already carries a description with an example, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The phrase 'with the given name' adds no constraints (length limits, allowed characters, uniqueness) beyond what the schema states; baseline 3.

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 a specific verb and resource — add a new page with the given name — inside a named UI surface (the Pages panel of the Sites editor). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from gsites_open_page by describing a create action, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives the concrete precondition (an editor tab must already be open) and names the two siblings that satisfy it, gsites_create_site and gsites_open with an /edit URL. No explicit when-not or duplicate-name guidance, but the context needed to invoke it is stated.

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