Check sitemap health with status totals, submitted and indexed counts, warnings, and errors to identify indexing issues.
Return an enriched read-only sitemap health summary with status totals, submitted/indexed content counts, warnings, and errors.
| 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. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly labels the operation as read-only, which is a meaningful safety trait, and lists the response's broad contents. However, it does not disclose potential caveats like quota/rate-limit behavior, what triggers a warning or error, or any fallback behavior beyond what the schema already documents.
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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Return an enriched read-only sitemap health summary') and then lists the distinguishing output elements. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key expectations: it is read-only and returns named summary categories. It could define 'health' or enumerate conditions for warnings/errors more explicitly, but the schema handles the one parameter and the description is otherwise sufficient.
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 input schema already provides complete documentation for the single siteUrl parameter, including format, examples, and the GSC_SITE_URL fallback. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning; the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 names a specific verb (Return), a clear resource (sitemap health summary), and distinctive output categories (status totals, submitted/indexed content counts, warnings, errors). It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like gsc_get_sitemap or gsc_track_sitemap_deltas, but the health-summary framing is specific enough to avoid major confusion.
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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus nearby alternatives such as gsc_get_sitemap, gsc_list_sitemaps, or gsc_health_check. The description only states what the tool returns, leaving usage context and exclusions entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.