google-search-console-mcp

Submit a sitemap

submit_sitemap

Idempotent

Submit or resubmit a sitemap to a Search Console property to notify Google of content changes. Ensure the sitemap URL is reachable; afterward, check processing status with get_sitemap.

Instructions

Submit or resubmit a sitemap for a property. Resubmitting an existing sitemap is a safe way to nudge Google into re-downloading it after content changes. The sitemap must already be reachable at the given URL and must live under the property. Returns no data on success; call get_sitemap afterwards to check processing status.

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": "submit_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteUrl`	Yes	Search Console property, exactly as it appears in `list_sites`. URL-prefix properties include the scheme and a trailing slash ("https://example.com/"); domain properties use the "sc-domain:" prefix ("sc-domain:example.com"). These are distinct properties with different data.
`feedpath`	Yes	Full URL of the sitemap to submit, e.g. "https://example.com/sitemap.xml".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds value beyond annotations by explaining that resubmission is a safe nudge, that the sitemap must already be reachable, and that no data is returned on success. It also directs the caller to get_sitemap for status, which is useful behavioral context not present in the annotations.

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?

Three focused sentences with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and each sentence contributes essential information: what the tool does, when resubmission is useful, prerequisites, and expected return behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: prerequisites, behavior, and follow-up action. It even preempts confusion about the empty response by telling the agent to check get_sitemap afterward.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with strong parameter descriptions containing examples and format guidance. The description adds further meaning by specifying that the sitemap must be reachable and must live under the property, which clarifies feedpath requirements beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (submit or resubmit), the resource (sitemap), and the target context (a property). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_sitemap, list_sitemaps, and delete_sitemap by naming the operation and its resubmission role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context for when to use it, including resubmitting after content changes and the prerequisites that the sitemap must be reachable and under the property. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_sitemaps or get_sitemap, but the guidance is sufficient for correct selection.

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

Deploy Server