Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gsc-mcp

gsc-mcp

by ajmalaksar25
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get sitemap

get_sitemap

Retrieve detailed status for a single sitemap by providing its full feed URL.

Instructions

Get detailed status for a single sitemap by its full feed URL.

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": {
      "feedpath": "<feedpath>"
    },
    "name": "get_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteUrlNoProperty as shown in Search Console: a URL-prefix property ends with a slash (e.g. "https://example.com/") or a domain property uses "sc-domain:example.com". May be a registered alias, or omitted to use the active/default site.
feedpathYesFull URL of the sitemap, e.g. https://example.com/sitemap.xml

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what 'detailed status' entails. Minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single concise sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It adequately defines the tool's purpose but lacks details on return value or error conditions. For a low-complexity tool, it is marginally complete.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond schema; mentioning 'full feed URL' is redundant with the feedpath description.

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 clearly states the action ('Get detailed status') and the resource ('single sitemap by its full feed URL'). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_sitemaps' which lists all sitemaps, as this tool is for a specific sitemap.

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?

The description implies use for a single sitemap but does not explicitly mention when to use over 'list_sitemaps' or provide exclusion criteria. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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