Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Search Console MCP

Google Search Console MCP

by rohoswagger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Submit sitemap

gsc_submit_sitemap

Submit a sitemap URL to a Search Console property to notify Google about new or updated content, ensuring faster discovery and indexing.

Instructions

Submit a sitemap URL to a Search Console property. Requires the webmasters OAuth scope.

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_submit_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteUrlYes
feedpathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses an auth requirement (webmasters OAuth scope), which is useful, but it does not mention side effects, duplicate handling, verification requirements, or error behavior. This is adequate but incomplete.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant phrasing. The core action is front-loaded and the auth note is a valuable single addition.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotation coverage, the description is too sparse. It leaves an agent unsure about exact parameter semantics, response behavior, and when to choose this over the batch submission sibling.

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%, and the description only hints at parameter meaning via 'sitemap URL' and 'Search Console property.' It gives a rough mapping to feedpath and siteUrl but does not explain URL formats, accepted values, or how the two parameters relate.

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 clearly states the action: submit a sitemap URL to a Search Console property. It identifies both the resource and the operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling gsc_batch_submit_sitemaps.

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 use this tool versus the batch submission or deletion siblings. The OAuth scope requirement is a prerequisite, not usage direction, so an agent must infer when this single-submit tool is appropriate.

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