Sam GSC MCP

delete_site

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a Google Search Console property permanently when GSC_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true is set, using the exact site URL from list_properties.

Instructions

Remove a property from your Search Console account (requires GSC_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true).

Args: site_url: Exact property string from list_properties

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>"
    },
    "name": "delete_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot express: the environment-variable gate that must be enabled before the call will succeed.

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 destructive gate is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the total length is two short blocks. The 'Args:' listing is slightly boilerplate but earns its place by pinning down the single required parameter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent semantics. Combined with the explicit auth gate and parameter sourcing, an agent has what it needs to call this correctly; only the accepted property-string formats are unstated.

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%, so the description carries the load, and it does: site_url must be the exact property string, obtained from list_properties. That sourcing constraint is real value beyond the bare 'Site Url' string type, though the exact format (sc-domain: vs URL prefix) is not spelled out.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a property from your Search Console account'), which an agent can easily separate from add_site or list_properties. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it contrasts with, so it lands at clear-but-not-fully-differentiated.

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?

Gives two concrete usage conditions: the destructive-operation gate (GSC_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true) and the requirement to obtain the exact property string from list_properties. It does not state when removal is inappropriate or what alternatives exist, but the preconditions are explicit.

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