Skip to main content
Glama
thenavidm

Google Search Console MCP

by thenavidm
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Submit or resubmit a sitemap

submit_sitemap
Idempotent

Submit a sitemap to Google Search Console to prompt recrawling after publishing. It is the programmatic equivalent of requesting indexing; check status later with the sitemap lookup.

Instructions

Submit or resubmit a sitemap. This is the only way the API can ask Google to recrawl anything: there is no endpoint behind the "Request indexing" button, so resubmitting after publishing is the programmatic equivalent. Returns immediately. Google fetches the file on its own schedule, so read the result back with get_sitemap rather than expecting counts here.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYesThe 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.
accountNoWhich signed-in Google account to act as, by email. Omit to use the default. Call list_accounts to see what is signed in.
sitemap_urlYesFull URL of the sitemap. Must be on the property it is submitted to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.3.0
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, non-read-only, but the description adds behavior they cannot express: the call returns immediately, Google fetches on its own schedule, and no counts are available here. That async/no-result-here disclosure is exactly the extra context an agent needs and is not duplicated from structured fields.

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 the action, then the recrawl rationale, then the timing caveat and the read-back pointer. No filler and each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining that the call returns immediately and that results must be read via get_sitemap, which is the key thing an agent would otherwise get wrong. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema descriptions are richer than anything the tool text provides (property string shapes, 403 risk, account selection). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 verb and resource ('Submit or resubmit a sitemap') and immediately distinguishes it from the read-side sibling by naming get_sitemap as the way to check results. An agent can tell it apart from list_sitemaps/delete_sitemap/get_sitemap without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('resubmitting after publishing is the programmatic equivalent' of Request indexing) and routes the agent to get_sitemap for the outcome. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions or prerequisites, but the context is clear enough to select the tool confidently.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools