Retrieve submitted sitemaps for a Google Search Console property, including errors, warnings, and URL counts. Pass a sitemap index to view child sitemaps.
Sitemaps submitted for a property, with errors/warnings and URL counts. Pass sitemap_index to list its children.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_url | Yes | ||
| sitemap_index | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context about the returned data, specifically that results include errors/warnings and URL counts, which helps set expectations for the response.
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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The purpose and return content come first, followed by the key parameter usage, making it well front-loaded and easy to scan.
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 simple read-only listing tool with a rich annotation set and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the resource, returned contents, and the optional sitemap_index behavior, though sibling differentiation could be stronger.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains sitemap_index well by stating that passing it lists children, but site_url is only implied by 'for a property' and is not explicitly named or clarified.
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 clearly identifies the resource and scope: sitemaps submitted for a property, including errors/warnings and URL counts. It effectively distinguishes this as a listing tool for a property's sitemaps, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like get_sitemap or submit_sitemap.
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?
It provides a conditional usage hint: 'Pass sitemap_index to list its children.' However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_sitemap, submit_sitemap, or delete_sitemap, leaving broader usage guidance implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.