Google Sites MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Open a Google Sites URL

gsites_open

Read-onlyIdempotent

Opens a Google Sites URL in a controlled Chromium browser with a persistent Google login so you can start a new site, view the site list, or edit an existing site.

Instructions

Open a URL in the controlled browser (a visible Chromium with a persistent Google login). Use 'https://sites.google.com/new' to start a new site, 'https://sites.google.com/' for the site list, or an edit URL like 'https://sites.google.com/u/0/d//edit'. First time only: if a Google login page appears, ask the user to sign in manually in the opened window (profile stored at /root/.google-sites-mcp-profile), then call this again. Returns the final URL and page title.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "gsites_open"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Full URL, e.g. https://sites.google.com/new

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent), the description discloses the side effect of opening a visible window, the persistent profile location, and a first-run authentication failure mode with an explicit recovery instruction ('ask the user to sign in manually... then call this again'). It also states the return values (final URL and page title), which is valuable because no output schema exists.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the concrete URL variants, followed by the exception path. Every sentence carries information; only the inline profile path is arguably incidental detail for an agent, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Given a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the definition covers the action, entry URLs, the auth edge case, and the return shape. The remaining gap is failure behaviour for non-login errors (bad URL, timeout) and whether an existing browser session is reused, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% for the single 'url' parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds modest meaning by showing which URL shapes are meaningful (canonical edit URLs of the form /u/0/d/<id>/edit), but it does not explain how the returned final URL may differ from the requested one after redirects or login.

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?

The description opens with a concrete verb and resource ('Open a URL in the controlled browser') and adds the key qualifier that it is a visible Chromium with a persistent Google login, which tells an agent this is a real navigation rather than a fetch. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely-named siblings 'gsites_open_site' and 'gsites_open_page', which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It supplies concrete entry-point URLs for three distinct intents (new site, site list, existing edit URL), which is genuine usage guidance. But it never states when to prefer this over 'gsites_open_site' or 'gsites_open_page', nor what preconditions hold (e.g. whether a browser must already exist), so the sibling-routing guidance an agent needs is implied rather than stated.

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