Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
mugoosse

Sitemap MCP Server

by mugoosse
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

サイトマップMCPサーバー

任意のURLからサイトマップを取得、解析、視覚化することで、ウェブサイトのアーキテクチャを検出し、サイト構造を分析します。手動で探索することなく、隠れたページを発見し、整理された階層構造を抽出します。

Claude Desktop 用のすぐに使用できるプロンプト テンプレートが含まれており、Web サイトの分析、サイトマップの健全性の確認、URL の抽出、不足しているコンテンツの検索、URL 入力だけでの視覚化の作成などを行うことができます。

ライセンスパイパイPythonバージョン状態 鍛冶屋のバッジ

デモ

サイトマップの力を活用して、あらゆる Web サイトに関する質問への回答を得ることができます。

ツールボタンの横にある「添付」ボタンをクリックします。

画像

次に、 visualize_sitemapを選択します。

ここで、windsurf.com にアクセスします。

画像

そして、サイトマップの視覚化が得られます。

Related MCP server: jcrawl4ai-mcp-server

インストール

uvがインストールされていることを確認してください。

Claude Desktop、Cursor、Windsurfへのインストール

次のエントリをclaude_desktop_config.json 、カーソル設定などに追加します。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "sitemap": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["sitemap-mcp-server"],
      "env": { "TRANSPORT": "stdio" }
    }
  }
}

Claude が起動している場合は再起動してください。Cursor の場合は、更新ボタンを押すか、設定で MCP サーバーを有効にしてください。

Smithery経由でインストール

Smithery経由で Claude Desktop のサイトマップを自動的にインストールするには:

npx -y @smithery/cli install @mugoosse/sitemap --client claude

MCP検査官

npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector env TRANSPORT=stdio uvx sitemap-mcp-server

http://127.0.0.1:6274で MCP インスペクターを開き、 stdioトランスポートを選択して、MCP サーバーに接続します。

# Start the server
uvx sitemap-mcp-server

# Start the MCP Inspector in a separate terminal
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector connect http://127.0.0.1:8050

http://127.0.0.1:6274で MCP インスペクターを開き、 sseトランスポートを選択して、MCP サーバーに接続します。

SSEトランスポート

SSE トランスポートを使用する場合は、次の手順に従います。

  1. サーバーを起動します。

uvx sitemap-mcp-server

  1. MCP クライアント (カーソルなど) を構成します。

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "sitemap": {
      "transport": "sse",
      "url": "http://localhost:8050/sse"
    }
  }
}

地域開発

ソースからプロジェクトをビルドして実行する手順については、 DEVELOPERS.mdガイドを参照してください。

使用法

ツール

MCP サーバー経由では次のツールを利用できます。

  • get_sitemap_tree - ウェブサイトの URL からサイトマップ ツリーを取得して解析します

    • 引数: url (ウェブサイトの URL)、 include_pages (オプション、ブール値)

    • 戻り値: サイトマップのツリー構造のJSON表現

  • get_sitemap_pages - フィルタリングオプションを使用して、ウェブサイトのサイトマップからすべてのページを取得します

    • 引数: url (ウェブサイトの URL)、 limit (オプション)、 include_metadata (オプション)、 route (オプション)、 sitemap_url (オプション)、 cursor (オプション)

    • 戻り値: ページ区切りメタデータを含むページのJSONリスト

  • get_sitemap_stats - ウェブサイトのサイトマップに関する統計情報を取得する

    • 引数: url (ウェブサイトのURL)

    • 戻り値: ページ数、変更日、サブサイトマップの詳細を含むサイトマップの統計情報を含む JSON オブジェクト

  • parse_sitemap_content - XML またはテキストコンテンツからサイトマップを直接解析します

    • 引数: content (サイトマップ XML コンテンツ)、 include_pages (オプション、ブール値)

    • 戻り値: 解析されたサイトマップのJSON表現

プロンプト

サーバーには、Claude Desktop でテンプレートとして表示される、すぐに使えるプロンプトが含まれています。サーバーをインストールすると、「テンプレート」メニュー（メッセージ入力欄の横にある + アイコンをクリック）にこれらのテンプレートが表示されます。

  • サイトマップ分析: ウェブサイトのサイトマップの包括的な構造分析を提供します

  • サイトマップの健全性をチェック: サイトマップのSEOと健全性の指標を評価します

  • サイトマップから URL を抽出: サイトマップから特定の URL を抽出してフィルタリングします。

  • サイトマップ内の欠落コンテンツを見つける: ウェブサイトのサイトマップ内のコンテンツのギャップを特定します

  • サイトマップ構造の視覚化: サイトマップ構造の Mermaid.js 図視覚化を作成します。

これらのプロンプトを使用するには:

  1. Claude Desktopのメッセージ入力の横にある+アイコンをクリックします

  2. リストから希望のテンプレートを選択してください

  3. プロンプトが表示されたらウェブサイトのURLを入力してください

  4. クロードは適切なサイトマップ分析を実行します

例

完全なサイトマップを取得する

{
  "name": "get_sitemap_tree",
  "arguments": {
    "url": "https://example.com",
    "include_pages": true
  }
}

フィルタリングとページネーションでページを取得する

ルートで絞り込む
{
  "name": "get_sitemap_pages",
  "arguments": {
    "url": "https://example.com",
    "limit": 100,
    "include_metadata": true,
    "route": "/blog/"
  }
}
特定のサブサイトマップでフィルタリング
{
  "name": "get_sitemap_pages",
  "arguments": {
    "url": "https://example.com",
    "limit": 100,
    "include_metadata": true,
    "sitemap_url": "https://example.com/blog-sitemap.xml"
  }
}
カーソルベースのページネーション

サーバーは、大規模なサイトマップを効率的に処理するために、MCP カーソルベースのページネーションを実装します。

最初のリクエスト:

{
  "name": "get_sitemap_pages",
  "arguments": {
    "url": "https://example.com",
    "limit": 50
  }
}

ページネーション付きの応答:

{
  "base_url": "https://example.com",
  "pages": [...],  // First batch of pages
  "limit": 50,
  "nextCursor": "eyJwYWdlIjoxfQ=="
}

カーソルを使用した後続のリクエスト:

{
  "name": "get_sitemap_pages",
  "arguments": {
    "url": "https://example.com",
    "limit": 50,
    "cursor": "eyJwYWdlIjoxfQ=="
  }
}

結果がなくなると、応答にnextCursorフィールドは含まれなくなります。

サイトマップ統計を取得する

{
  "name": "get_sitemap_stats",
  "arguments": {
    "url": "https://example.com"
  }
}

応答には、各サブサイトマップの合計統計と詳細統計の両方が含まれます。

{
  "total": {
    "url": "https://example.com",
    "page_count": 150,
    "sitemap_count": 3,
    "sitemap_types": ["WebsiteSitemap", "NewsSitemap"],
    "priority_stats": {
      "min": 0.1,
      "max": 1.0,
      "avg": 0.65
    },
    "last_modified_count": 120
  },
  "subsitemaps": [
    {
      "url": "https://example.com/sitemap.xml",
      "type": "WebsiteSitemap",
      "page_count": 100,
      "priority_stats": {
        "min": 0.3,
        "max": 1.0,
        "avg": 0.7
      },
      "last_modified_count": 80
    },
    {
      "url": "https://example.com/blog/sitemap.xml",
      "type": "WebsiteSitemap",
      "page_count": 50,
      "priority_stats": {
        "min": 0.1,
        "max": 0.9,
        "avg": 0.5
      },
      "last_modified_count": 40
    }
  ]
}

これにより、MCPクライアントは、どのサブサイトマップがさらなる調査に有益であるかを把握できるようになります。その後、 get_sitemap_pagesのsitemap_urlパラメータを使用して、特定のサブサイトマップからページをフィルタリングできます。

サイトマップコンテンツを直接解析する

{
  "name": "parse_sitemap_content",
  "arguments": {
    "content": "<?xml version=\"1.0\" encoding=\"UTF-8\"?><urlset xmlns=\"http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9\"><url><loc>https://example.com/</loc></url></urlset>",
    "include_pages": true
  }
}

謝辞

ライセンス

このプロジェクトはMITライセンスの下で提供されています。詳細はLICENSEファイルをご覧ください。

Available Tools

4 tools
get_sitemap_pagesB

Get all pages from a website's sitemap with optional limits and filtering options. Supports cursor-based pagination.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cursorNoPagination cursor for fetching the next page of results
include_metadataNoWhether to include additional page metadata (priority, lastmod, etc.)
limitNoMaximum number of pages to return per page (0 for default of 100)
routeNoOptional route path to filter pages by (e.g., '/blog')
sitemap_urlNoOptional URL of a specific sitemap to get pages from
urlYesThe URL of the website homepage (e.g., https://example.com)

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'cursor-based pagination' which is valuable behavioral information, but doesn't address other important aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when no sitemap exists. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely efficient - just two sentences that convey the core functionality and key behavioral characteristic (pagination). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic functionality but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, how pagination works in practice, or what happens with edge cases. The description is complete enough to understand what the tool does at a high level, but insufficient for confident usage without additional trial-and-error.

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 fully documents all 6 parameters. The description mentions 'optional limits and filtering options' which aligns with parameters like 'limit' and 'route', but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get all pages') and resource ('from a website's sitemap'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sitemap_stats' or 'get_sitemap_tree', which likely provide different types of sitemap information.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description mentions optional limits and filtering, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_sitemap_stats' or 'parse_sitemap_content'. There's no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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

get_sitemap_statsC

Get comprehensive statistics about a website's sitemap structure

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL of the website homepage (e.g., https://example.com)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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. While 'Get comprehensive statistics' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what 'comprehensive statistics' includes, whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or how it interacts with the sitemap (e.g., fetching vs. analyzing). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that presumably returns statistical data. It doesn't explain what 'comprehensive statistics' entails (e.g., counts, sizes, formats), how results are structured, or any behavioral traits. This leaves the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single 'url' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get comprehensive statistics') and resource ('about a website's sitemap structure'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (get_sitemap_pages, get_sitemap_tree, parse_sitemap_content), which all relate to sitemaps but likely serve different purposes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, constraints, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over others, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

get_sitemap_treeC

Fetch and parse the sitemap tree from a website URL

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
include_pagesNoWhether to include page details in the response
urlYesThe URL of the website homepage (e.g., https://example.com)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'fetch and parse,' implying network interaction and data processing, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the parsed tree structure looks like. For a tool that interacts with external websites, this omission is significant and leaves key behavioral aspects unclear.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('fetch and parse') and resource ('sitemap tree'), making it easy to grasp quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (involving network fetching and parsing), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the parsed tree output entails, potential errors (e.g., invalid URLs or sitemap formats), or performance considerations. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('url' and 'include_pages'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'include_pages' affects the parsed tree or providing examples of valid URL formats. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('fetch and parse') and resource ('sitemap tree from a website URL'), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sitemap_pages' or 'parse_sitemap_content', which likely handle similar sitemap-related tasks, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions fetching and parsing a sitemap tree, but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferred over siblings like 'get_sitemap_pages' (which might retrieve individual pages) or 'parse_sitemap_content' (which might handle raw sitemap data). Without such context, users must infer usage from tool names alone.

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

parse_sitemap_contentC

Parse a sitemap directly from its XML or text content

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesThe content of the sitemap (XML, text, etc.)
include_pagesNoWhether to include page details in the response

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool parses sitemap content but doesn't mention error handling, output format, performance implications, or any side effects. For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, this is inadequate, as it leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence: 'Parse a sitemap directly from its XML or text content.' It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. This makes it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the parsed output looks like, how errors are handled, or any behavioral context. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful, but it falls short.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters ('content' and 'include_pages') thoroughly. The description adds no additional semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Parse a sitemap directly from its XML or text content.' It specifies the verb ('parse') and resource ('sitemap'), and mentions the input format ('XML or text content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_sitemap_pages' or 'get_sitemap_tree,' which might have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_sitemap_pages' or 'get_sitemap_stats,' nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions, scoring a 2 for minimal guidance.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 4 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedget_sitemap_pages
    • First observedget_sitemap_stats
    • First observedget_sitemap_tree
    • First observedparse_sitemap_content
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored across 4 tools

Disambiguation4/5

The tools have mostly distinct purposes with clear boundaries: get_sitemap_pages retrieves individual pages, get_sitemap_stats provides analytics, get_sitemap_tree handles hierarchical structure, and parse_sitemap_content processes raw content. However, get_sitemap_pages and get_sitemap_tree could potentially overlap in some use cases as both involve fetching sitemap data from a URL, though their outputs differ significantly.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get_' or 'parse_' prefixes and snake_case formatting. This uniformity makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand at a glance, with no deviations in naming conventions.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, this server is well-scoped for its sitemap-focused purpose. Each tool serves a distinct function without redundancy, and the count is appropriate for covering core operations like retrieval, analysis, structure parsing, and content processing in this domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for sitemap operations, including fetching pages, analyzing statistics, parsing trees, and handling raw content. A minor gap exists in update or modification capabilities (e.g., editing or generating sitemaps), but this is reasonable for a read-focused server, and agents can work around this limitation.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches