Skip to main content
Glama
acamolese

Google Search Console Audit MCP

by acamolese
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

gsc_sitemaps

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify sitemap indexing issues by listing all sitemaps Google knows for a property, with errors, warnings, and submitted vs indexed URL counts.

Instructions

List the sitemaps Google knows about for a property, with errors and warnings.

Read-only: submitting or deleting a sitemap needs the read-write scope, which this server never requests.

Returns one row per sitemap: path, last submitted and downloaded timestamps, pending flag, index flag, warning and error counts, and the submitted / indexed URL counts when Google reports them.

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the operation as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful context beyond this by explaining the server never requests read-write scope, which is why submitting or deleting is impossible. It also discloses that returned data reflects what Google knows, with error and warning counts, adding value beyond the 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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the main purpose, the second adds the key read-only constraint, and the third summarizes the row shape. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Combined with the detailed input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly. It explains scope, read-only policy, and the row contents, while the schema covers parameter formats. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking this tool 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?

The input schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents site_url, no_cache, and response_format clearly. The main tool description adds little to parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List the sitemaps Google knows about for a property, with errors and warnings.' It clearly identifies a listing operation on sitemaps with diagnostic data, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_query or gsc_sites. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to siblings or state what it is not, so it misses full differentiation.

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?

The description gives clear context: this is a read-only listing tool and cannot submit or delete sitemaps because the server never requests read-write scope. This is a useful exclusion. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool to use for mutation or for site discovery, though the site_url schema description suggests gsc_sites when unsure.

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