google-search-console-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Remove ownership

unverify_site

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove a site's verification credential from Google Search Console. Two-step process: first call returns a token, second call completes the removal.

Instructions

Removes this credential from the owners of a site. Two-step: the first call returns a confirmation token, the second performs the removal.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The verification resource id, as returned by list_verified_sites. It is not the property URL — it is an opaque string such as "dns://example.com" or "https://example.com/".
`confirm_token`	No	The token from this tool's previous refusal. Call without it first to see what would happen and receive the token; it cannot be guessed or reused.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`site`	Yes
`unverified`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0Sep 8, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / confirm_token / maxLength
```
Added value: +64
```
- addedInput schema / properties / id / maxLength
```
Added value: +2048
```
First observedv0.2.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the confirmation-token flow, the need to call without the token first, and that the token cannot be guessed or reused. This directly prepares the agent for the tool's unusual interactive behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the essential two-step usage detail. Parameter descriptions are thorough without being overly verbose.

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?

The description provides enough context for an agent to know when to use the tool and how to sequence the calls. With an output schema present and clear parameter descriptions, no critical information appears missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Both parameters are fully described with valuable context. The id description clearly distinguishes the verification resource id from a property URL, and confirm_token explains its source and lifecycle.

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?

Clearly states a specific action: removes a credential/ownership from a site. The title 'Remove ownership' reinforces the purpose and distinguishes it from other site/sitemap tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explains the two-step invocation pattern: first call without confirm_token returns a token, second call performs the removal. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with related tools like delete_site or update_site_owners.

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