Skip to main content
Glama
acamolese

Google Search Console Audit MCP

by acamolese
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

gsc_sites

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all Google Search Console properties accessible to the authenticated account, returning exact site_url values and whether each is a domain or URL-prefix property to resolve invalid property errors.

Instructions

List every property the authenticated account can read.

Call this first when a property string fails: it returns the exact site_url values the other tools expect, and whether each one is a domain property (sc-domain:example.com) or a URL-prefix property.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
no_cacheNoBypass the response cache for this call.
response_formatNo`tsv` (default, compact) or `json`.tsv

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 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"
+}
  2. First observedv2.0.2

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those hints: it returns exact site_url strings other tools expect and distinguishes domain properties from URL-prefix properties.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the practical usage instruction is directly after, making it easy for an agent to scan and act on.

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?

Given the output schema exists, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and parameters are fully documented, the description adds exactly the missing context: when to call this tool and what value it provides. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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%, so the parameters no_cache and response_format are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not, 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List every property the authenticated account can read.' It clearly defines the tool's scope and distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_site_details or gsc_query by positioning it as the property-listing/discovery tool.

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 an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this first when a property string fails.' It also explains what the tool returns and how that helps with other tools, which gives an agent clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the unique listing purpose makes the usage boundary clear.

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