list_sitesRetrieve every Search Console property accessible to the signed-in Google account. Use it to identify available sites before querying traffic, index status, or performance data.
Lists every Search Console property the signed-in Google account can access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 usefully adds the authorization scope ('signed-in Google account can access'), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what a property entry contains, which is where the remaining risk lies.
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 well-formed sentence with no filler, leading with the action and resource. Nothing to trim.
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 zero-parameter read tool this is nearly sufficient, but with no output schema the description should indicate what comes back (e.g., site URLs and permission levels), since that shapes how an agent uses the result in subsequent calls.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('Search Console property') plus scope ('the signed-in Google account can access'), which lets an agent distinguish it from ga_list_properties and bing_list_sites. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite guidance (e.g., 'call this first to discover site URLs needed by search_analytics or inspect_url'). Usage is only inferable from the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.