Retrieve submitted sitemaps for one Google Search Console property, with status and counts, to audit sitemap coverage and indexing.
List submitted sitemaps for one property with status and counts.
Top-level fields are TSV; the nested contents array is compact JSON exactly as the API sends it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 burden. It does add one genuinely useful trait — the response shape (TSV top-level, compact JSON contents array) — but says nothing about permissions needed, pagination, sitemap-index handling, or whether the call is read-only, which for a bare read tool leaves meaningful gaps.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, the second reserved for output shape. No filler; the line break is slightly awkward but content earns its place.
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, and the description covers the essential purpose for a one-parameter read tool. Still, with zero annotations and an undocumented required parameter, an agent lacks the property-identifier format and the permission expectations it needs to call this correctly the first time.
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?
The single parameter site_url has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. "For one property" hints that the parameter identifies a property, but the critical format ambiguity (URL prefix form vs. a sc-domain-style identifier) is not resolved anywhere.
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 and resource ("List submitted sitemaps") plus scope ("for one property") and what the result carries (status and counts). Siblings — list_sites, search_analytics, inspect_url — operate on different resources, so confusion is unlikely even without an explicit differentiator.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it wants sitemap data for a property. There is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisite (e.g., verification/permission requirement), and no pointer to an alternative for broader site diagnostics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.