Google Search Console MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get sitemap

gsc_get_sitemap

Retrieve status and metadata for a submitted sitemap in Google Search Console. Check sitemap submission health and details to identify issues.

Instructions

Fetch status and metadata for a submitted sitemap.

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": {
      "siteUrl": "<siteUrl>",
      "feedpath": "<feedpath>"
    },
    "name": "gsc_get_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteUrl`	Yes
`feedpath`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It states the tool fetches status and metadata, but does not describe the return format, error behavior, required permissions, or how invalid inputs are handled. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for an agent.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant or filler language. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is arguably too sparse to fully serve the agent.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description alone is insufficient. It does not explain what 'status and metadata' includes, what makes a sitemap 'submitted', or how the two required parameters relate. For a simple two-parameter tool, a richer description would be feasible and necessary.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain siteUrl or feedpath. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, and 'submitted sitemap' hints at feedpath, but no format, relationship, or required values are clarified. 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource: status and metadata for a submitted sitemap. The singular 'a submitted sitemap' implies a targeted operation, distinguishing it from listing or submitting sitemaps, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools.

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?

No usage conditions, when-to-use guidance, or alternatives are mentioned. The singular phrasing implies this tool is for one specific sitemap rather than all sitemaps, but no explicit guidance differentiates it from gsc_list_sitemaps or other siblings.

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

Deploy Server