Retrieve submitted sitemaps' status, last download date, error counts, and indexed URL counts for a verified site on Google or Bing.
List all submitted sitemaps and their current status, last download date, error counts, and indexed URL counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| engine | No | Search engine provider: 'google' or 'bing' (default: 'google') | |
| siteUrl | Yes | Site URL as verified in Search Console |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Because no annotations are provided, the description itself must carry behavioral disclosure. Its output-field list does add useful detail, and 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not state prerequisites (verified siteUrl), inclusion rules, or any caveats about error counts/status. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
One sentence contains a clear action verb, resource, and a compact list of returned fields; no filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 2-parameter read-only listing, the description conveys the core purpose and output fields, but with no output schema and no annotations it leaves routing and prerequisites implicit. The missing guidance around sibling tools and exact response shape keeps it from being fully complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%; the schema already explains siteUrl as the verified Search Console site URL and documents engine as an enum with default 'google'. The description adds no semantic value beyond referencing submitted sitemaps, so the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List all submitted sitemaps') and enumerates the exact fields returned (status, last download date, error counts, indexed URL counts), making its function unambiguous. The plural 'all' naturally contrasts with sibling get_sitemap, which implies a single-sitemap retrieval.
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 sentence tells an agent when to choose this tool over siblings such as get_sitemap or engine_status. The only use condition is implicit in the verb 'List'; there are no exclusions or alternative routing. This leaves selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.