gsc_submit_sitemapSubmit or resubmit a sitemap URL for a Google Search Console property so search engines can discover and index your pages.
Submit (or resubmit) a sitemap URL for the property.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | No | Property: 'sc-domain:example.com' (domain property) or 'https://example.com/' (URL-prefix, trailing slash). Defaults to the project's linked property. | |
| feedpath | Yes | e.g. https://example.com/sitemap.xml |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not disclose whether submission requires a verified property, what happens if the sitemap is already submitted, error behavior for malformed URLs, or side effects on processing status.
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 short sentence with the verb and target front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though terse enough that it omits any context that would help an agent act correctly.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no usage or constraint information, the definition is too thin. An agent cannot tell what preconditions apply, what a successful/failed submission returns, or how this relates to the sibling sitemap tools.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both siteUrl and feedpath are fully documented in the schema, including the domain vs URL-prefix format and the default linked property. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline case for a 3.
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?
States a specific verb (submit/resubmit) and resource (sitemap URL for the property), so the core action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like gsc_list_sitemaps or gsc_delete_sitemap, though the name makes the distinction reasonably obvious.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus gsc_list_sitemaps or gsc_delete_sitemap, and no prerequisites (e.g., site must be verified). The only usage hint is the parenthetical 'or resubmit', which implies re-submission is allowed but doesn't say why or when.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.