Google Search Console (GSC) MCP

Delete a sitemap

gsc_delete_sitemap

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a sitemap from a Search Console property to deregister it. Google stops tracking the sitemap, but the file remains on your server.

Instructions

Remove a sitemap from a property in Search Console. This is a DESTRUCTIVE write action: it deregisters the sitemap (it does not delete the file from your server, but Google stops tracking it). Requires the full webmasters OAuth scope.

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>",
      "feedpath": "<feedpath>"
    },
    "name": "gsc_delete_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feedpath`	Yes	Full URL of the sitemap to remove, e.g. https://example.com/sitemap.xml.
`site_url`	Yes	The Search Console property. Use the exact form shown by gsc_list_sites: a Domain property is 'sc-domain:example.com'; a URL-prefix property is the full origin with a trailing slash, e.g. 'https://example.com/'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it explains the exact effect (deregisters, does not delete the file, stops tracking) and the required OAuth scope. The annotations already indicate destructive/write behavior, but the description adds meaningful nuance that changes how an agent should expect the operation to behave.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action; the second provides crucial behavioral nuance and a prerequisite. The most important information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the destructive nuance, the effect on the server and Google, and the required permission. There are no obvious gaps given the tool's complexity and the existing annotations.

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% with each parameter having a clear description (e.g., 'Full URL of the sitemap to remove' and exact form for site_url). The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameters further, so it does not add value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a sitemap from a property in Search Console'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like gsc_submit_sitemap and gsc_list_sitemaps. The clarifying phrase 'it deregisters the sitemap... but Google stops tracking it' further sharpens the purpose.

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 sets clear context for when to use this tool (removing a sitemap from tracking) and notes the destructive consequence, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. It also mentions the required OAuth scope, which is a usage prerequisite. This falls short of explicit exclusion guidance, so a 4 is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server