Google Search Console MCP

One submitted sitemap

get_sitemap

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve details for a submitted Google Search Console sitemap, including last download, last submission, URL counts by type, and pending or errored status.

Instructions

Details for one submitted sitemap: last download, last submitted, URL counts per type, and whether it is pending or errored.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "sitemap_url": "<sitemap_url>"
    },
    "name": "get_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site`	Yes	The Search Console property. Either a URL-prefix property ("https://navid.me/", trailing slash included) or a domain property ("sc-domain:navid.me"). A bare hostname is read as a domain property. Call list_sites for the exact strings this account owns, because the two shapes are different properties and mixing them up returns a 403.
`account`	No	Which signed-in Google account to act as, by email. Omit to use the default. Call list_accounts to see what is signed in.
`sitemap_url`	Yes	Full URL of the sitemap, e.g. https://navid.me/sitemap.xml

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0Oct 5, 2026
- removedInput schema / $schema
```
Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
```
First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description's value-add is naming the returned fields (last download, pending/errored status), but it says nothing about auth/permission requirements, error behavior (e.g. what a 403 looks like), or account scoping.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the identity of the resource and then lists the payload. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the key fields. For a read-only single-record lookup with fully documented parameters, this is nearly complete; only the error/permission behavior and the fact that a sitemap must already be submitted are unstated.

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%, so all three parameters (site, account, sitemap_url) are already documented in the schema, including the URL-prefix vs domain-property 403 pitfall and the list_sites/list_accounts pointers. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource ('one submitted sitemap') and enumerates exactly what it returns: last download, last submitted, URL counts per type, and pending/errored status. The word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from the list_sitemaps sibling, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description says 'submitted sitemap', which suggests it applies to sitemaps already registered via submit_sitemap and is the single-item counterpart to list_sitemaps. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no precondition (e.g. 'you must know the sitemap_url first'), and no exclusions.

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