Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

searchconsole.sitemaps.submit

Submit a sitemap URL for a site to Google Search Console so search engines can discover pages to crawl and index; returns the API response as JSON.

Instructions

Submits a sitemap for a site [HTTP PUT] — updates the resource; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request bodies are built from the typed parameters (typed flags win over the params map), or read whole from body_file Siblings over the same resource: delete, get, list.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
paramsNoParameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
dry_runNoReturn the request that would be sent, without sending it.
siteUrlYes[URL path segment] The site's URL, including protocol. For example: `http://www.example.com/`.
feedpathYes[URL path segment] The URL of the actual sitemap. For example: `http://www.example.com/sitemap.xml`.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / feedpath / description
      Previous value: -"The URL of the actual sitemap. For example: `http://www.example.com/sitemap.xml`."New value: +"[URL path segment] The URL of the actual sitemap. For example: `http://www.example.com/sitemap.xml`."
    • changedInput schema / properties / siteUrl / description
      Previous value: -"The site's URL, including protocol. For example: `http://www.example.com/`."New value: +"[URL path segment] The site's URL, including protocol. For example: `http://www.example.com/`."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses HTTP PUT, resource update behavior, refusal under --readonly safety profiles, JSON response format, and how request bodies are built. It does not mention authentication or rate-limit behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core action and safety behavior, then covers return and body-building semantics. It is dense and mostly efficient, though the sentence combining body_file and sibling tools lacks a clean separator and is slightly run-on.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key missing context: HTTP method, read-only safety refusal, response type, body construction, and sibling alternatives. It leaves out permission requirements and finer update semantics, but is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description still adds useful semantics by explaining precedence ('typed flags win over the params map') and the body_file alternative for supplying the request body.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Submits a sitemap for a site', and identifies the HTTP method as PUT with an update semantics. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools over the same resource by naming delete, get, and list.

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?

Clearly implies when to use this tool: submitting a sitemap. It also names the alternatives over the same resource (delete, get, list), but does not spell out explicit exclusions beyond the readonly refusal, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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