Sam GSC MCP

delete_sitemap

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove or unsubmit a sitemap from Google Search Console without affecting URLs that are already indexed.

Instructions

Remove (unsubmit) a sitemap from Search Console (requires GSC_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true). Already-indexed URLs stay indexed.

Args: site_url: Exact property (defaults to GSC_SITE_URL) sitemap_url: Full sitemap URL

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "delete_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_url`	No
`sitemap_url`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds two pieces of context beyond the annotations: the GSC_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true guard and the non-obvious side effect that already-indexed URLs stay indexed. Annotations already cover destructive/idempotent hints, so this is meaningful added value, though it doesn't mention irreversibility of the unsubmit or error behavior.

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 destructive action and its guard are front-loaded in the first two sentences, followed by a compact two-line args block. No sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the guard, side effect, and both parameters are covered. The remaining hole is that both parameters are optional with an empty-string default for sitemap_url, and the description never says what happens if it is omitted.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it mostly does: it explains that site_url is the exact property and falls back to GSC_SITE_URL, and that sitemap_url must be a full URL. It leaves a gap around sitemap_url defaulting to an empty string despite no parameters being marked required.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Remove (unsubmit) a sitemap from Search Console") and clarifies the operation with the parenthetical synonym. It is clearly distinguishable from submit_sitemap and get_sitemaps by the removal verb.

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 a concrete usage context via the precondition (requires GSC_ALLOW_DESTRUCTIVE=true), which tells the agent when this call will actually succeed. It does not name alternatives (e.g., use get_sitemaps to verify before removing) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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