Retrieve submitted sitemaps with their status, last download time, errors or warnings, and submitted URL counts by type, optionally scoped to a site URL.
All submitted sitemaps with status, last download, errors/warnings and submitted URL counts by type.
Args: site_url: Exact property (defaults to GSC_SITE_URL)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_url | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include error/warning and download metadata, which signals this is a diagnostic read rather than a mutation, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or behavior on properties with no sitemaps.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence delivers the payload contents, and the Args block is minimal. The formatting is slightly awkward (bare 'Args:' with a tab-indented line), but nothing is padded.
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?
With a rich annotation set and an output schema present, return-value explanation is not needed, so the remaining burden is routing and parameter format. The definition leaves the sibling disambiguation and property-format question unanswered, which are the two gaps most likely to cause a mis-call.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter information. It does add real value by noting the argument must be an exact property and that it defaults to GSC_SITE_URL, but it never shows the expected property format (URL vs. sc-domain: prefix), which is the main ambiguity for this field.
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 names a specific resource (submitted sitemaps) and enumerates the returned attributes (status, last download, errors/warnings, URL counts by type), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It stops short of differentiating itself from near-identical siblings such as list_sitemaps_enhanced, get_sitemap_details, and manage_sitemaps, leaving the agent to guess which sitemap tool to pick.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus list_sitemaps_enhanced, get_sitemap_details, or manage_sitemaps, despite four sitemap-related siblings in the toolset. The only guidance is the implicit 'all sitemaps' scope, which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.