google-search-console-mcp

by ni-c

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

Submit a sitemap

submit_sitemap

Idempotent

Submits a sitemap URL to Google Search Console for indexing and updates.

Instructions

Submits a sitemap URL, or resubmits one Google already knows. To refresh a sitemap Google already knows, submit the same URL again — there is no separate update call, and submitting is idempotent. Google re-crawls on its own schedule; nothing can force it, and the ping endpoint that used to exist was removed in 2023. The call succeeding means Google accepted the address, not that the sitemap is valid — it is fetched later, and any parse error shows up in get_sitemap minutes to hours afterwards.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`feedpath`	Yes	The full URL of the sitemap. It must be inside the property — https://example.com/sitemap.xml for https://example.com/
`site_url`	Yes	The Search Console property: "sc-domain:example.com" for a domain property, or "https://example.com/" for a URL-prefix property (the trailing slash is required)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`site`	Yes
`feedpath`	Yes
`submitted`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0Sep 8, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / feedpath / maxLength
```
Added value: +2048
```
- addedInput schema / properties / site_url / maxLength
```
Added value: +2048
```
First observedv0.2.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description transparently explains that a successful call only means the address was accepted, not that the sitemap is valid, and that parse errors will appear later in get_sitemap. This sets accurate expectations about the tool's behavior and its effects, complementing the idempotentHint annotation.

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 concise yet comprehensive, covering purpose, idempotency, expectations, and error handling in a well-structured manner. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple submission tool, the description provides complete context: what it does, how to refresh, what success means, and how to check for errors later. It also includes relevant historical context about the ping endpoint, making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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 already provides thorough descriptions for both site_url and feedpath, covering 100% of the parameters. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: submitting a sitemap URL or resubmitting an existing one. It distinguishes the action and provides context about idempotency, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit guidance is given: resubmit the same URL to refresh, no separate update call exists, and the action is idempotent. It also sets expectations about Google's crawling schedule and the removal of the ping endpoint, which is valuable for correct usage.

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