Google Search Console MCP Server

list_sitemaps

List all sitemaps submitted for a site in Google Search Console. Use the output to verify sitemap status and diagnose indexing problems.

Instructions

List all sitemaps submitted for a site in Google Search Console.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_sitemaps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteUrl`	Yes	Site URL as it appears in Search Console

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Sep 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'List all' strongly implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that nothing is modified, whether any special authorization is required, or how invalid siteUrl values are handled. These are useful details an agent would need to invoke confidently.

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 clear sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is appropriately concise for a simple one-parameter tool, though it is terse enough to omit helpful context that would make it more informative.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity—one required parameter and no nested objects or output schema—the description gives enough context for an agent to understand the operation and provide the correct siteUrl. It could add details about what a returned sitemap list contains or the format of siteUrl, but these are minor gaps, not blockers.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the sole parameter siteUrl is described as 'Site URL as it appears in Search Console.' The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond this, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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?

The description names a clear verb and resource: 'List all sitemaps submitted for a site in Google Search Console.' This distinguishes it from siblings like list_sites, search_analytics, and inspect_url, which cover different resources or actions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use it: when you need sitemaps associated with a Search Console site. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or what alternatives like search_analytics or inspect_url are better for, leaving route selection mostly to inference.

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

Deploy Server