get_site_toolRetrieve details for a specific Google Search Console property by providing its site URL or domain property to view verification and configuration data.
Get details for a specific Search Console property.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_url | Yes | Site URL (e.g., "https://example.com/") or domain property (e.g., "sc-domain:example.com") |
| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description adds essentially nothing behavioral: no mention of what happens for unverified or non-existent properties, no permission requirements, no indication that the result depends on prior add_site/verification state. For a read tool the bar is lower, but this adds zero context.
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 or redundancy. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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?
The output schema and annotations already cover return shape and safety, so the description's job is narrow. It is nonetheless silent on failure modes (unverified or missing property) and on the relationship to the sibling list/add/delete site tools, leaving an agent to infer the intended workflow.
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 description coverage is 100% and the schema helpfully documents both accepted URL forms (https:// and sc-domain:). The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Get details') and resource ('a specific Search Console property'), which the agent can distinguish from list_sites_tool's bulk listing. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, but the singular scope is clear from the wording.
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 call this versus list_sites_tool (which may already return property details) or when to use inspect_url_tool instead. The only implied usage is 'you already know the site_url', which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.