Which integrations are available for this server?

Provides tools to list sites, query search analytics (clicks, impressions, CTR, position), manage sitemaps (list, submit, delete), and inspect URL indexing status in Google Search Console.

How do I use searchconsole-mcp?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@searchconsole-mcp List all sites in my Search Console account" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

searchconsole-mcp

by harisnadeem

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Google Search Console MCP Server (by Haris Nadeem)

Package name: searchconsole-mcp

A lightweight, fast MCP server for Google Search Console. Query search analytics, manage sitemaps, and inspect URLs directly from your AI assistant.

Python 3.10+ License

Features

7 Powerful Tools: List sites, query search analytics, manage sitemaps, inspect URLs
Fast & Lightweight: Built with httpx and google-auth — minimal dependencies
Standard MCP: Works with Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf, and any MCP-compatible client
Full Analytics: Query clicks, impressions, CTR, and position with flexible dimensions and filters
URL Inspection: Check indexing status and coverage for any URL
Sitemap Management: Submit, list, and delete sitemaps

Related MCP server: gsc-mcp-connector

Installation

From PyPI (recommended)

pip install searchconsole-mcp

From source

git clone https://github.com/harisnadeem/searchconsole-mcp.git
cd searchconsole-mcp
pip install -e .

Quick Start

1. Enable the Search Console API

Go to Google Cloud Console
Select or create a project
Click Enable

2. Authenticate

Option A: User Account (OAuth) — recommended for personal use

gcloud auth application-default login

Option B: Service Account — recommended for team/agency use

Create a service account: Google Cloud Console → IAM → Service Accounts
Download the JSON key

Set the environment variable:

export GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS="/path/to/service-account-key.json"

3. Configure your MCP client

Claude Desktop

Edit ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json (macOS) or %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json (Windows):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "searchconsole": {
      "command": "searchconsole-mcp",
      "env": {}
    }
  }
}

Cursor

In Cursor Settings → Features → MCP, add:

Name: searchconsole
Type: command
Command: searchconsole-mcp

Windsurf

Edit ~/.codeium/windsurf/mcp_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "searchconsole": {
      "command": "searchconsole-mcp"
    }
  }
}

Usage Examples

Once connected, ask your AI assistant:

"List all sites in my Search Console account"
"Show me search analytics for example.com for the last 30 days"
"Get the top queries with highest impressions but low CTR"
"Check if https://example.com/page is indexed"
"Submit the sitemap at https://example.com/sitemap.xml"

Available Tools

Tool	Description
`get_sites`	List all verified sites in your Search Console account
`query_search_analytics`	Query clicks, impressions, CTR, position by dimensions
`get_sitemap`	Get metadata for a specific sitemap
`list_sitemaps`	List all sitemaps for a site
`submit_sitemap`	Submit/add a new sitemap URL
`delete_sitemap`	Remove a sitemap from Search Console
`inspect_url`	Inspect indexing status, coverage, and robots.txt state

Configuration

Environment Variables

Variable	Description	Required
`GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS`	Path to service account key JSON	Only if using service account

Google Cloud Project

The server uses Application Default Credentials (ADC). Ensure the Google Cloud project has the Search Console API enabled.

API Rate Limits

The Search Console API enforces per-user quotas:

Default: ~25,000 queries per day
URL Inspection: Limited (~10 per minute)

The server does not implement additional rate limiting; respect the API quotas.

Requirements

Python 3.10+
Google Cloud project with Search Console API enabled
Authenticated Google account with Search Console access

Development

# Clone and setup
git clone https://github.com/harisnadeem/searchconsole-mcp.git
cd searchconsole-mcp
python -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate
pip install -e ".[dev]"

# Run tests
python -m pytest tests/

# Format code
black searchconsole_mcp/
ruff check searchconsole_mcp/

Publishing a Release

This repository is configured for GitHub Actions + PyPI Trusted Publishing.

In PyPI, create the project searchconsole-mcp (or use the existing one).
In PyPI project settings, add a Trusted Publisher:
- Owner: harisnadeem
- Repository: searchconsole-mcp
- Workflow: publish.yml
- Environment: pypi
Create and push a version tag:
```
git tag v0.1.0
git push origin v0.1.0
```
Create a GitHub Release for that tag.
The Publish to PyPI workflow publishes the package automatically.

Contributing

Contributions welcome! Please read CONTRIBUTING.md for guidelines.

Changelog

See CHANGELOG.md for version history.

License

Apache 2.0 — see LICENSE for details.

Acknowledgments

Built with:

Not officially affiliated with Google. This is an unofficial, community-maintained MCP server for Google Search Console.

Available Tools

7 tools

delete_sitemapA

Delete a sitemap from a website.

Args: site_url: The site, e.g. 'https://example.com/'. feedpath: The sitemap path to delete, e.g. '/sitemap.xml'.

Returns: Empty dict on success.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_url`	Yes
`feedpath`	Yes

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are missing, so description must cover behavioral traits. It states 'delete' implying mutation, but does not disclose if the action is reversible, requires permissions, or affects other resources. Minimal disclosure beyond return value.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Concise, well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is meaningful, no fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains purpose, parameters, and return. Lacks behavioral context but is otherwise complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds examples and clarifies each parameter's role (site_url as the site URL, feedpath as the sitemap path). This adds value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (sitemap from a website). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_sitemap, submit_sitemap, and list_sitemaps by the delete verb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as distinguishing from submit_sitemap or list_sitemaps. Lacks context on prerequisites or consequences.

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

get_sitemapA

Get details about a specific sitemap.

Args: site_url: The site, e.g. 'https://example.com/'. feedpath: The sitemap path, e.g. '/sitemap.xml'.

Returns: Dictionary with sitemap metadata (submitted/referenced counts, last downloaded, errors, warnings).

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_url`	Yes
`feedpath`	Yes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description details the return dictionary contents (submitted/referenced counts, last downloaded, errors, warnings), but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or discuss any side effects, permissions, or error conditions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is efficiently structured: a one-line purpose, then well-organized parameter and return descriptions. The docstring format is slightly verbose but still concise overall.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return values. It does not include error handling or usage context, but is sufficiently complete for a straightforward read operation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear explanations and examples for both required parameters: site_url and feedpath, adding semantic meaning beyond their types.

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 explicitly states 'Get details about a specific sitemap', using a specific verb and resource. It contrasts with sibling tools like delete_sitemap and list_sitemaps by clearly indicating its purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_sitemaps for discovery, delete_sitemap for removal). There are no prerequisites or context hints.

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

get_sitesA

List all websites in the user's Search Console account.

Returns a list of site entries, each containing 'siteUrl' and permission level.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the return format (list of siteUrl and permission level) but does not cover potential limits, authentication requirements, or error scenarios. This is adequate but lacks depth for a fully transparent description.

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?

The description is two sentences with no extraneous information. The purpose is stated first, followed by the return structure. Every sentence is necessary and adds value.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and is a simple retrieval operation, the description covers the essential information: what it lists and what each entry contains. No gaps are apparent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description correctly states the function, which is sufficient since no parameters need clarification. Baseline 4 for no parameters.

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 clearly states the action 'List' and the resource 'all websites in the user's Search Console account'. It includes what is returned (siteUrl and permission level). The tool is distinct from siblings that deal with sitemaps, URL inspection, and analytics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context. It simply states what it does without explaining when it is appropriate.

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

inspect_urlA

Inspect the indexing status of a URL in Google.

Args: site_url: The site URL registered in Search Console, e.g. 'https://example.com/'. inspection_url: The full URL to inspect, e.g. 'https://example.com/some-page'. language_code: The language code for the inspection request (default 'en-US').

Returns: Dictionary with inspection result including indexStatus, coverageState, robots_txt_state, page_fetch_state, etc.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`site_url`	Yes
`inspection_url`	Yes
`language_code`	No	en-US

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It describes the return value but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or mention any side effects, authentication, or rate limits.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections, making it easy to parse. It is concise yet informative, though slightly verbose with examples.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the input parameters and output fields adequately. It does not mention error handling or permissions, but for a simple inspection tool, the information is sufficient.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides detailed explanations for each parameter, including examples and context. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool inspects the indexing status of a URL in Google, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like sitemap operations or search analytics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide guidance on prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose.

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

list_sitemapsA

List all sitemaps submitted for a website.

Args: site_url: The site whose sitemaps to list, e.g. 'https://example.com/'.

Returns: Dictionary with 'sitemap' list containing feedpath, type, contentsCounts, etc.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_url`	Yes

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a dictionary with specific fields, suggesting a read operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or address potential side effects.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of three sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the third sentence explains the return value without unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does and the general shape of the return. It does not elaborate on every return field, but this is acceptable without an output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has only one required parameter (site_url) with 0% schema description coverage. The description adds value by providing an example format ('https://example.com/'), which clarifies the expected structure beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists all sitemaps for a website. The verb 'list' and resource 'sitemaps' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like delete_sitemap, get_sitemap, and submit_sitemap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage by stating it lists sitemaps for a website, but it does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_sitemap or submit_sitemap, nor does it provide any context on when not to use it.

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

query_search_analyticsA

Query Search Analytics data for a website.

Args: site_url: The site to query, e.g. 'https://example.com/' or 'sc-domain:example.com'. start_date: Start date in YYYY-MM-DD format. end_date: End date in YYYY-MM-DD format. dimensions: Group results by these dimensions. Valid values: date, query, page, country, device, searchAppearance. Omit to get aggregate totals with no grouping. search_type: Type of search to filter by. Values: web (default), image, video, news, discover, googleNews. row_limit: Maximum number of rows to return (default 1000). start_row: Zero-based offset for pagination (default 0). data_state: Include only 'final' (default) confirmed data, or 'all'. aggregation_type: How to aggregate data. 'auto' (default), 'byPage', or 'byProperty'. dimension_filter_groups: List of filter groups to apply. Each group has 'groupType' ('and'/'or') and 'filters' list. Each filter: {dimension, expression, operator}. Operators: equals, notEquals, contains, notContains, beginsWith, notBeginsWith, endsWith, notEndsWith, isEmpty, isNotEmpty.

Returns: Dictionary with 'rows' (list of result rows) and 'responseAggregationType'. Each row contains dimension values in 'keys' plus: - clicks (total clicks) - impressions (total impressions) - ctr (click-through rate) - position (average search position)

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`site_url`	Yes
`start_date`	Yes
`end_date`	Yes
`dimensions`	No
`search_type`	No	web
`row_limit`	No
`start_row`	No
`data_state`	No	final
`aggregation_type`	No
`dimension_filter_groups`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return format and parameters but does not mention side effects, authentication, rate limits, or data freshness. As a query, it is assumed read-only, but this is not explicit.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'default' repeated) but overall efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all parameter semantics and return structure. However, it lacks error handling, rate limit info, or clarification on required permissions, which would be helpful.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, yet the description provides comprehensive details for each parameter: valid values, defaults, constraints, and examples. This adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 name 'query_search_analytics' combined with the opening sentence 'Query Search Analytics data for a website' clearly states the tool's function. It is distinct from sibling tools (sitemap and inspection tools), so there is no ambiguity.

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 provides detailed parameter documentation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. However, since siblings are unrelated, the context implies it is the primary analytics query tool, and the parameter descriptions give implicit guidance.

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

submit_sitemapA

Submit (add) a sitemap to a website.

Args: site_url: The site, e.g. 'https://example.com/'. feedpath: The sitemap path to submit, e.g. '/sitemap.xml'.

Returns: Empty dict on success.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_url`	Yes
`feedpath`	Yes

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions return value but lacks details on permissions, idempotency, error conditions, or side effects beyond addition.

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?

The description is concise, structured with Args and Returns sections, and uses clear, non-redundant language. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

While the description explains parameters and return value, it lacks behavioral context such as idempotency, validation, or conflict behavior. For a simple tool with 2 params, this is borderline adequate but incomplete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by listing parameters with examples (e.g., 'site_url: The site, e.g., https://example.com/'). This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema types.

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 clearly states the action (submit/add) and the resource (sitemap to a website), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_sitemap and get_sitemap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

7 tool updatesv0.1.0Jun 14, 2026
- First observeddelete_sitemap
- First observedget_sitemap
- First observedget_sites
- First observedinspect_url
- First observedlist_sitemaps
- First observedquery_search_analytics
- First observedsubmit_sitemap

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: sitemap operations (delete, get, list, submit), site listing, URL inspection, and analytics querying. No overlapping functionality.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., delete_sitemap, get_sites, query_search_analytics), making naming predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for the Google Search Console domain, covering essential operations without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

Covers core functionality: site listing, sitemap management (CRUD), URL inspection, and search analytics. Minor gaps like site permission management or other reports are missing but not critical.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

mcp-serpOAuth
io.github.AceDataCloud
MCP server for Google search results via SERP API
Search Browser Automation Web Scraping
21
RampifyOAuth
dev.rampify
SEO MCP server: crawl your site, find AI-visibility gaps, and ship the fix from your coding agent.
Marketing Web Scraping Developer Tools
23
CalmSEOOAuth
com.calmseo
SEO MCP server for keyword research, SERP analysis, audits, and Search Console workflows.
Marketing Search
2
Serper A
io.github.pipeworx-io
Serper MCP — wraps the Serper Google Search API (serper.dev)
Search RAG Systems
342

Related MCP Servers

gsc-mcp
Search Monitoring
jayrockliffe-defused
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
MCP server for querying Google Search Console data — search analytics, URL inspection, sitemap monitoring, and more — read-only tools for any MCP-compatible AI client.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-04-25 02:34 UTC)
7
Apache 2.0
gsc-mcp-connector
JuJu78
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Self-hosted MCP server that exposes Google Search Console tools (list sites, query analytics, inspect URL, list sitemaps) via natural language to AI assistants like ChatGPT and Claude.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-05-12 17:29 UTC)
1
MIT
gsc-mcp
Search Marketing
odrones
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server that exposes the Google Search Console API, allowing LLMs to query SEO data, inspect URLs, manage sitemaps, and analyze search performance via natural language.
Updated 5 months ago (2026-03-30 12:13 UTC)
63
MIT
gsc-mcp-connector
Search Marketing
ValetudoSEO
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
Self-hosted MCP server that connects Google Search Console to AI assistants, enabling natural language queries about search analytics, sitemaps, and URL inspection data.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-16 15:07 UTC)
MIT

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/harisnadeem/searchconsole-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server