Google Search Console (GSC) MCP

List sitemaps

gsc_list_sitemaps

Read-onlyIdempotent

List submitted sitemaps for a property with processing times, pending state, and warning/error counts to confirm sitemaps are processed without errors.

Instructions

List the sitemaps submitted for a property, with each one's submit/download times, pending state, and warning/error counts. Use this to check whether a sitemap was processed and is error-free.

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>"
    },
    "name": "gsc_list_sitemaps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context by revealing what data is returned (timestamps, states, counts), which goes beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the action and details, followed by a practical use case. No wasted words.

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 read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately describes the returned fields and the purpose. It covers all necessary context without requiring output schema documentation.

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% and the site_url parameter has a detailed description explaining exact formats (sc-domain vs URL-prefix). The tool description itself adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 that it lists sitemaps for a property and includes specific details (submit/download times, pending state, error/warning counts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gsc_list_sites (lists properties) and gsc_submit_sitemap (submits).

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 explicitly says 'Use this to check whether a sitemap was processed and is error-free', providing a clear use case. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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

Deploy Server