gsc_get_sitemapRetrieve details for a submitted sitemap in Google Search Console by providing the property and sitemap URL to inspect sitemap status and metadata.
Get details about a submitted sitemap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | Search Console property, such as "sc-domain:example.com" or "https://www.example.com/". | |
| sitemapUrl | Yes | Absolute URL of the sitemap. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own (auth needs, error cases for unsubmitted sitemaps, return shape) but does not contradict the annotations either.
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 short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. It is efficient, though nearly to the point of under-specification rather than tightness.
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 read-only lookup with two fully documented parameters and no nested objects or output schema, the description plus annotations is essentially complete. The only gap is that 'details' is never characterized.
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% with both parameters documented (siteUrl property format and sitemapUrl as an absolute URI), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.
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 (get details about a submitted sitemap), which is clear on its own. However it does not distinguish itself from the sibling gsc_list_sitemaps, so an agent must infer that this one retrieves a single sitemap rather than enumerating them.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. There is no mention of gsc_list_sitemaps as the way to discover sitemapUrl values, nor any note that the sitemap must already be submitted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.