searchconsole-mcp

get_sitemap

Retrieve detailed metadata about a specific sitemap, including submitted and referenced URLs, last download status, errors, and warnings.

Instructions

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).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site_url": "<site_url>",
      "feedpath": "<feedpath>"
    },
    "name": "get_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 14, 2026

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.

Deploy Server