list_sitemapsRetrieve submitted sitemaps for a Search Console property to review last download time, warnings, errors, and submitted/indexed URL counts and diagnose indexing issues.
Submitted sitemaps with their last download time, warnings, errors and submitted/indexed URL counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | Property exactly as listed by list_sites, e.g. "sc-domain:example.com" or "https://example.com/" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral content by naming the specific report fields (last download time, warnings, errors, submitted/indexed URL counts), which matters because no output schema exists.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every clause describes a distinct piece of returned data.
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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the return payload well enough to substitute for the missing output schema. The only gap is the absent when-to-use routing.
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%, and the siteUrl description already specifies the exact format and its provenance from list_sites. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource (submitted sitemaps) and enumerates the returned data (download time, warnings, errors, URL counts). This clearly separates it from submit_sitemap and audit_sitemap, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as submit_sitemap or audit_sitemap despite three related sitemap tools in the sibling set. Usage is only inferable from the description of returned fields.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.