Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ga4-mcp

ga4-mcp

by chimpmatic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

gsc_submit_sitemap

Submit a sitemap URL to Google Search Console for a specified site to notify Google of new or updated content.

Instructions

Submits a sitemap URL for a site in Google Search Console.

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": {
      "site_url": "<site_url>",
      "sitemap_url": "<sitemap_url>"
    },
    "name": "gsc_submit_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_urlYesSite URL as defined in GSC
sitemap_urlYesFull URL of the sitemap to submit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as idempotency, authentication requirements, or side effects (e.g., overwriting existing sitemaps). Merely states the action.

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 sentence, no extraneous words. Front-loaded with the essential action and resource.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with two required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks critical context: what happens after submission (e.g., response format), validation rules, or error conditions. Incomplete for a user to confidently expect behavior.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

Description clearly states the specific action ('submits a sitemap URL') and the resource ('for a site in Google Search Console'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gsc_list_sitemaps and gsc_inspect_url.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gsc_list_sitemaps for checking existing sitemaps). Does not mention prerequisites like needing to add the site first via gsc_add_site.

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