Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Search Console Connector

Google Search Console Connector

by malaysherasia-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

Delete sitemap

gsc_delete_sitemap
Destructive

Remove a sitemap from a Search Console property without deleting the file from your website.

Instructions

Remove a sitemap from the property in Search Console (does not touch the file on the website).

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": {
      "feedpath": "<feedpath>"
    },
    "name": "gsc_delete_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteUrlNoProperty: 'sc-domain:example.com' (domain property) or 'https://example.com/' (URL-prefix, trailing slash). Defaults to the project's linked property.
feedpathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags the mutation, and the description adds genuine value beyond it by scoping what is destroyed: the Search Console entry, not the website file. It still omits whether removal is reversible, permission requirements, and behavior when the sitemap is absent.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the scope clarification appended efficiently. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the key ambiguity (registration vs file) but is silent on the required feedpath format, permission needs, and error behavior when the sitemap does not exist.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%: siteUrl is documented in the schema while feedpath has only a format hint and no description. The tool description says nothing about either parameter, so it does not compensate for the undocumented feedpath.

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?

Specific verb ('Remove') plus resource ('a sitemap from the property in Search Console') with the parenthetical clarifying that only the registration is removed, not the file. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like gsc_submit_sitemap and gsc_list_sitemaps.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by 'Remove a sitemap from the property', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., re-adding via gsc_submit_sitemap). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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