Google Sites MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Open one of your sites in the editor by its name

gsites_open_site

Open a Google Site by matching its name from the Sites home page and return the editor URL, eliminating the need to copy or mistype site IDs.

Instructions

Go to the Sites home and open the site whose name contains name. Returns the editor URL. Avoids copying site ids by hand (they are easy to mistype).

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_open_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations give the safety profile (not read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new context: it navigates to the Sites home page and returns the editor URL. It does not disclose what happens when the substring matches multiple sites or no site — a real ambiguity for a name-contains lookup.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the return value, then a brief rationale for why name-based lookup exists. The parenthetical about mistyping ids is marginal but small; nothing else is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly notes it returns the editor URL, and the tool is simple (one string param). Still missing are failure and ambiguity behavior (no match, multiple matches), which matter for a browser-navigation action that is not idempotent.

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?

The single `name` parameter has no schema description at all, so the description carries the burden; it does add the crucial semantics that matching is by substring ('contains') rather than exact id. It stops short of specifying case sensitivity, tie-breaking among multiple matches, or what an unmatched name produces.

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: navigate to the Sites home and open the site matching `name`, returning the editor URL. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling navigation tools such as gsites_open or 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description indicates you use this when you know a site by name and want to avoid copying a site id. It never names an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition, despite several siblings that also open or navigate to sites and pages.

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