Skip to main content
Glama

sites_list

List all Google Search Console properties you have access to, providing a clear overview of your managed sites.

Instructions

List all sites (properties) you have access to in Google Search Console.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The primary handler for the sites_list tool. It calls the Google Webmasters API GET /sites endpoint, then returns the result via toolResult() helper, or an error via errorResult() helper.
    server.tool(
      "sites_list",
      "List all sites (properties) you have access to in Google Search Console.",
      {},
      async () => {
        try {
          const result = await apiCall(`${WEBMASTERS_BASE}/sites`, {
            method: "GET",
          });
          return toolResult(result);
        } catch (e) {
          return errorResult(e);
        }
      },
    );
  • The schema (second argument to server.tool) is an empty object {}, meaning the sites_list tool takes no input parameters.
      {},
      async () => {
        try {
          const result = await apiCall(`${WEBMASTERS_BASE}/sites`, {
            method: "GET",
          });
          return toolResult(result);
        } catch (e) {
          return errorResult(e);
        }
      },
    );
  • src/index.ts:136-150 (registration)
    Tool registered via server.tool() on the MCP server named 'gsc-mcp' version 1.3.0, with the name 'sites_list'.
    server.tool(
      "sites_list",
      "List all sites (properties) you have access to in Google Search Console.",
      {},
      async () => {
        try {
          const result = await apiCall(`${WEBMASTERS_BASE}/sites`, {
            method: "GET",
          });
          return toolResult(result);
        } catch (e) {
          return errorResult(e);
        }
      },
    );
  • src/index.ts:806-808 (registration)
    Secondary registration in createSandboxServer() for Smithery sandbox mode. This version returns a stub 'sandbox' text instead of making real API calls.
    sandbox.tool("sites_list", "List all sites (properties) you have access to in Google Search Console.", {}, async () => {
      return { content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: "sandbox" }] };
    });
  • The apiCall helper function used by the sites_list handler. It fetches an OAuth token, makes an HTTP request with the Bearer token, and returns the response.
    async function apiCall(
      url: string,
      options: RequestInit = {},
    ): Promise<{ ok: boolean; status: number; body: string }> {
      const token = await getAccessToken();
      const headers: Record<string, string> = {
        Authorization: `Bearer ${token}`,
        ...((options.headers as Record<string, string>) || {}),
      };
    
      const res = await fetch(url, { ...options, headers });
      const body = await res.text();
      return { ok: res.ok, status: res.status, body };
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention potential behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or whether 'access' implies any permissions beyond listing.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the key information. No extraneous words, perfectly efficient.

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 parameterless list tool, the description is adequate but lacks details on return format, pagination, or required permissions. It is minimally complete given the simplicity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is appropriate given no parameters exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb (list), resource (sites/properties), and scope (you have access to). While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sites_get or sites_add, the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (to list all accessible sites) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives such as sites_get for a specific site.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mikusnuz/gsc-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server