Google Search Console by Get MCP Ads

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

gsc get sitemap

gsc_get_sitemap

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a submitted sitemap by its full URL to view its type, fetch state, errors, and submitted vs indexed content totals.

Instructions

Get one submitted sitemap by full feed path, including type, fetch state, warnings/errors, and submitted/indexed content totals.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteUrl`	No	Search Console property URL, e.g. https://example.com/ or sc-domain:example.com. Uses GSC_SITE_URL when omitted.
`feedpath`	Yes	Full sitemap URL exactly as submitted to Search Console.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Original tool result: parsed JSON when the text is JSON, otherwise the text or multiple MCP content blocks. Provider fields depend on the selected query.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.1Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful scope (submitted sitemap, full feed path) and return-content details, but it does not disclose significant behavioral traits beyond what the annotations and schema already convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single dense sentence that states the operation, the selection criterion, and the key output categories with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple single-getter tool with strong annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to fetch, by what identifier, and what kind of information the response contains.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with feedpath documented as 'Full sitemap URL exactly as submitted to Search Console.' The description's phrase 'full feed path' adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource—'Get one submitted sitemap by full feed path'—and enumerates what the response includes (type, fetch state, warnings/errors, submitted/indexed totals). It clearly distinguishes this single-item getter from siblings like gsc_list_sitemaps.

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?

The description makes the intended context clear: use this when you need one specific submitted sitemap and already know its full feed path. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'one... by full feed path' framing gives solid usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.