get_sitemapRetrieve details for any sitemap in Google Search Console by providing the property URL and sitemap URL. Use it to inspect sitemap status, submitted pages, and discovery issues.
Get details for a specific sitemap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_url | Yes | Property URL | |
| feed_path | Yes | Full URL of the sitemap (e.g. 'https://example.com/sitemap.xml') |
| 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 some burden. 'Get' signals a read-only operation, but no further behavioral details such as error handling, exact-match requirements, or parsing behavior are disclosed. The output schema covers return shape, so this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to stating the operation and target resource.
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?
For a simple two-parameter retrieval tool, the description, full schema, and output schema are largely sufficient. The main missing element is explicit guidance on when to use it versus sibling sitemap tools, but that gap is minor for this low-complexity action.
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 both parameters have descriptions, including a concrete example for feed_path. The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already carries the necessary weight.
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?
The description uses a clear verb and resource ('Get details for a specific sitemap') and the singular 'specific' distinguishes it from list_sitemaps. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
The phrase 'specific sitemap' implies this is the single-item retrieval counterpart to list_sitemaps, and it is clearly not for submission or deletion. However, it never states when to choose this over list_sitemaps or how it relates to related sitemap tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.