delete_sitemap_toolRemove a sitemap from Google Search Console by specifying the site URL and full sitemap URL. Use it to clean up outdated or incorrect sitemap entries.
Remove a sitemap from Search Console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feedpath | Yes | Full URL of the sitemap to delete | |
| site_url | Yes | Site URL or domain property |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a destructive deletion it says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, idempotency, or behavior when the sitemap does not exist — only restating the removal action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, appropriate for the operation. It is efficient, though the brevity is arguably under-specification rather than true conciseness given the destructive nature of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive, annotation-free tool the description should disclose irreversibility and prerequisites. As written it is too thin to let an agent invoke it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with 2 documented parameters (site_url, feedpath), so the schema already explains both required inputs including the full-URL format for feedpath. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a sitemap') scoped to Search Console, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like delete_site_tool, list_sitemaps_tool, or submit_sitemap_tool, but the delete-vs-list-vs-submit distinction is inferable from the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus get_sitemap_tool, list_sitemaps_tool, or submit_sitemap_tool, and no preconditions stated (e.g., the sitemap must already exist, the caller must own the property). The agent must infer all usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.