Google Search Console MCP

Token that proves ownership

get_verification_token

Read-onlyIdempotent

Mint a site or domain ownership token to verify a new Search Console property without the UI; publish it first (DNS TXT, META, or FILE), then call verify_site.

Instructions

Mint the token that proves ownership of a site or domain, so a new property can be verified without opening the Search Console UI. A domain property must use DNS: publish the returned token as a TXT record on the apex. A URL-prefix property can instead use META, a tag in the homepage head, or FILE, a file served at the site root. Publish the token first, then call verify_site. Minting a token changes nothing on its own.

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": {
      "identifier": "<identifier>",
      "type": "<type>",
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "get_verification_token"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	INET_DOMAIN for a domain property (sc-domain:), SITE for a URL-prefix property.
`method`	Yes	DNS_TXT is the only method a domain property accepts. A URL-prefix property can also use META or FILE.
`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.
`identifier`	Yes	The site URL for SITE ("https://navid.me/"), or the bare domain for INET_DOMAIN ("navid.me").

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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description still adds meaningful behavioral context by clarifying the side-effect profile ('Minting a token changes nothing on its own') and the external publish-then-verify workflow that annotations cannot express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the per-method publish instructions, then the sequencing constraint, then a closing side-effect note. No sentence is filler.

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 should ideally say what is returned (the token string), which it only implies via 'the returned token'. Otherwise it fully covers prerequisites, method constraints, and follow-up action for a 4-parameter tool.

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 schema already states the type/method constraints and identifier formats, so the description's restatement of DNS vs META/FILE and apex TXT placement adds only marginal detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('Mint the token that proves ownership of a site or domain') and frames the outcome ('so a new property can be verified'). It is unmistakably distinct from sibling tools like verify_site, add_site, or get_site.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the workflow: choose DNS for a domain property, META or FILE for a URL-prefix property, 'Publish the token first, then call verify_site.' The when-to-use and the next step are both spelled out.

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