Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
searchconsole-mcp

searchconsole-mcp

by harisnadeem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

submit_sitemap

Submit a sitemap to a website in Google Search Console by providing the site URL and sitemap path.

Instructions

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.

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": "submit_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_urlYes
feedpathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools