Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SEO Data MCP

SEO Data MCP

by pabsamuel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

gsc_sitemaps

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Search Console sitemaps for a specified site to review submitted sitemap files and verify which sitemaps Google has on record.

Instructions

List Search Console sitemaps. Free tier.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "gsc_sitemaps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'Free tier' note, which hints at quota or cost considerations, but never explains what it means, what permissions are needed, or whether pagination occurs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero padding. The trailing 'Free tier' fragment is terse but understandable as a cost caveat.

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?

There is no output schema and no description of what a sitemap entry looks like (path, lastDownloaded, errors, warnings), and the critical property-identifier format is absent. For a tool whose only parameter is a site identifier, this leaves an agent guessing at invocation details.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required 'site' parameter, and the description says nothing about its expected format (e.g., URL-prefix vs sc-domain property identifier) or length constraints. With one undocumented required parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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?

A clear verb and resource ('List Search Console sitemaps') tells an agent exactly what the tool returns. It does not differentiate from siblings like gsc_query or gsc_inspect, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus gsc_query or gsc_inspect, no prerequisites (e.g., property must be verified), and no exclusions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools