Lists verified web properties from Google Search Console, Bing Webmaster Tools, or GA4. Specify the target search engine to retrieve the property list.
List verified web properties across Google Search Console, Bing Webmaster Tools, or GA4.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| engine | No | Target search engine (default: all) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.2Input schema / properties / engine / descriptionPrevious value: -"The search engine (default: google)"New value: +"Target search engine (default: all)"Input schema / properties / engine / enumPrevious value: -[
- "google",
- "bing",
- "ga4"
-]New value: +[
+ "google",
+ "bing",
+ "all"
+]v1.14.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It does reveal the operation is a read-only listing and mentions 'verified' properties, but it doesn't explain what 'verified' means or how GA4 properties fit into the engine parameter. Doesn't cover pagination or return format.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.
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?
The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), but the description lacks important context: what 'verified' means, how GA4 relates to the engine parameter, and what the return data looks like. Adequate for a basic listing tool but with gaps.
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% (engine has a description). The description adds platform names but creates ambiguity by introducing GA4, which is not a search engine and doesn't map cleanly to the enum values (google, bing, all). Thus it adds some value but also confusion.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the resource ('verified web properties') plus the target platforms (GSC, Bing, GA4). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like sites_manage and sitemaps_list.
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?
The description implies its usage context—listing verified sites across specific platforms. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a list operation. A small deduction for not explicitly saying when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.