submit_sitemapSubmit a sitemap to Google Search Console for a specified site property. Provide the sitemap URL and site_url to notify Google of pages needing indexing.
Submit a sitemap to Search Console.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feedpath | Yes | Full URL of the sitemap to submit. | |
| site_url | Yes | Property identifier. |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about idempotency, permissions, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the sitemap is invalid — only that a submission occurs.
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 no wasted words. It is structurally sound but extremely terse for a mutation tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the input schema is fully described. However, the description lacks sibling differentiation and behavioral context for a write operation, leaving it partially incomplete.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about site_url or feedpath formats beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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 'Submit' and resource 'sitemap' with the destination 'Search Console,' making the core action clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling 'submit_sitemaps,' leaving ambiguity for an agent choosing between the two.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like submit_sitemaps, and no prerequisites or conditions for invocation. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.