sitemap_parseParse an XML sitemap into JSON to enumerate a site's pages for crawling, indexing, or content audits. Set a URL and optional max URL limit to retrieve page lists.
Fetch/parse an XML sitemap into JSON. Enumerate a site's pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Sitemap URL. | |
| maxUrls | No | Max 1000. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / maxUrls / descriptionPrevious value: -"Max URLs to return from a urlset (default 100, max 1000). Has no effect on sitemapindex (all child sitemaps are always returned)."New value: +"Max 1000."Input schema / properties / url / descriptionPrevious value: -"Sitemap URL (http:// or https://). Accepts sitemap.xml, sitemap_index.xml, or any XML sitemap."New value: +"Sitemap URL."v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds the output shape (JSON) plus the transform (XML to JSON). However, it omits behaviors an agent would care about: whether sitemap index files (nested sitemaps) are followed, how gzip sitemaps are handled, and whether results are truncated at maxUrls silently.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action stated first and the agent-facing purpose second. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient. It stops short of covering the edge cases that actually distinguish sitemap parsing (sitemap index recursion, truncation behavior) that an agent would need to interpret incomplete results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in structured data and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about the url parameter (e.g., whether it must point directly at an .xml sitemap) or about what happens when maxUrls truncates the list.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb and resource ("parse an XML sitemap into JSON") and adds the intent ("enumerate a site's pages"), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like fetch_extract, fetch_html, or rss_parse, which also retrieve page content, leaving the boundary implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase "enumerate a site's pages" implies the use case (bulk URL discovery from a sitemap) but never states when to prefer this over fetch_extract or fetch_html, nor any prerequisite such as the site actually having a published sitemap. Usage is inferable, not instructed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.