Skip to main content
Glama
acamolese

Google Search Console Audit MCP

by acamolese
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

gsc_site_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a property's permission level and type (domain or URL-prefix) in Google Search Console by supplying its site URL. Returns details for access and configuration.

Instructions

Permission level and property type for one property.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
no_cacheNoBypass the response cache for this call.
site_urlYes`sc-domain:example.com` for a domain property, or `https://example.com/` with the trailing slash for a URL-prefix property. Call gsc_sites if unsure.
response_formatNo`tsv` (default, compact) or `json`.tsv

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv3.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / no_cache
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Bypass the response cache for this call.",
+  "title": "No Cache",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / response_format
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "tsv",
+  "description": "`tsv` (default, compact) or `json`.",
+  "title": "Response Format",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / site_url / description
      Added value: +"`sc-domain:example.com` for a domain property, or `https://example.com/` with the trailing slash for a URL-prefix property. Call gsc_sites if unsure."
  2. First observedv2.0.2

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the tool exposes permission level and property type, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as caching behavior or response details. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 a single short declarative sentence with no filler. It front-loads the essential output information and earns its place entirely.

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?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, full parameter descriptions, and strong safety annotations, so the structured fields carry most of the context. The main description is minimal but adequate for invoking the tool; some additional context about interpreting 'permission level' would have been useful, but it is not critical given the output schema.

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%, and every parameter already has a meaningful description, including the site_url format, response_format options, and no_cache behavior. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the resource scope ('for one property') and states the output focus: 'Permission level and property type.' It lacks an explicit retrieval verb such as 'Get' or 'Return', but it is still distinguishable from the sibling gsc_sites tool, which lists properties.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The main description provides no when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives. The only routing hint, 'Call gsc_sites if unsure,' appears inside the site_url parameter description and concerns resolving a parameter value, not deciding whether this tool is the right choice.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools