Skip to main content
Glama

search_console_sitemaps_submit

Submit a sitemap URL to Google Search Console to request a re-crawl. Re-submitting is safe: it refreshes the entry and re-queues crawling without creating duplicates.

Instructions

Submit a sitemap URL to Google Search Console for the given verified site. Mutates Search Console state — registers or refreshes the sitemap entry so Google will re-crawl it. Safe to call repeatedly: re-submitting the same feedpath re-queues a crawl without creating a duplicate entry (Search Console PUTs the sitemap URL, not POST). Returns {status: 'submitted', sitemap: } on success; the API gives no synchronous processing status. Does not fetch or validate the sitemap contents — that happens asynchronously on Google's side and the parsed results surface in search_console_sitemaps_list afterwards. Requires the authenticated user to be a verified owner or full user of site_url. For read-only inspection of already-submitted sitemaps use search_console_sitemaps_list; for per-URL indexing diagnostics use search_console_url_inspection_inspect.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoWhy this change is being made: one or two sentences naming the evidence and the expected effect. Stored in the journal and on the action_log entry this call produces, for the operator and the next session.
feedpathYesAbsolute URL of the sitemap to submit (e.g. 'https://example.com/sitemap.xml'). Must be on the same host as site_url and reachable to Googlebot over HTTPS.
site_urlNoProperty identifier as registered in Search Console. For URL-prefix properties use the full URL including trailing slash (e.g. 'https://example.com/'). For Domain properties use the 'sc-domain:' prefix (e.g. 'sc-domain:example.com').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.20.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Why this change is being made: one or two sentences naming the evidence and the expected effect. Stored in the journal and on the action_log entry this call produces, for the operator and the next session.",
      +  "maxLength": 500,
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.37
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
      -  "site_url",
      -  "feedpath"
      -]New value: +[
      +  "feedpath"
      +]
  3. Addedv0.9.12
  4. Removedv0.9.6
  5. Addedv0.9.2
  6. Removedv0.9.1
  7. Addedv1.0.5

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it fully delivers. It discloses that the tool mutates Search Console state, is safe to call repeatedly, returns {status: 'submitted', sitemap: <feedpath>}, gives no synchronous processing status, does not validate sitemap contents, and requires authentication. The PUT-vs-POST detail further clarifies the idempotent 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 description is long but densely packed, with the core action front-loaded and every subsequent sentence adding distinct value: mutation semantics, idempotence, return shape, async limitations, auth requirements, and sibling routing. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description covers the return shape, side effects, idempotence, async behavior, validation limitations, auth requirements, and alternative tools. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect afterward.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents feedpath, site_url, and reason with meaningful detail. The description's references to feedpath and site_url reinforce usage but do not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Submit a sitemap URL to Google Search Console for the given verified site.' It also distinguishes itself from nearby siblings by naming search_console_sitemaps_list for read-only inspection and search_console_url_inspection_inspect for per-URL indexing diagnostics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly routes to alternatives: use search_console_sitemaps_list for read-only inspection and search_console_url_inspection_inspect for per-URL diagnostics, while this tool is for registering or refreshing a sitemap submission. It also states the precondition that the caller must be a verified owner or full user of site_url.

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