submit_sitemapsSubmit multiple sitemaps to a Google Search Console property in one batch call, so search engines can discover your site's pages faster.
Submit several sitemaps to one property in a single call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_url | Yes | Property identifier. | |
| feedpaths | Yes | Full URLs of the sitemaps to submit. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 burden. It doesn't disclose what happens on duplicate or invalid URLs, whether re-submission is idempotent, any per-property sitemap limits, or auth requirements for a mutating submission.
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 filler; the batch scope and target are stated immediately.
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?
With an output schema present and full parameter coverage, return values need no explanation. However, for a mutating submission tool with zero annotations and a near-identical sibling, the description leaves behavioral expectations and tool selection entirely to inference.
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 coverage is 100%, so site_url and feedpaths are already documented as a property identifier and a list of full sitemap URLs. The description adds only the constraint that all submitted sitemaps target one property, which is marginal over 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 gives a specific verb (Submit) and resource (sitemaps) plus the batch scope ('several sitemaps... in a single call'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the singular submit_sitemap sibling. It stops short of naming that alternative, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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?
'Several sitemaps ... in a single call' hints at the batch use case versus the singular submit_sitemap, but the description never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of that sibling or what preconditions (ownership/verification of the property) apply. Usage is implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.