Add a verified site to Google Search Console after running verify_site. Use it to register URL-prefix or domain properties for indexing and monitoring.
Adds a VERIFIED site to Search Console (sites.add). Run verify_site first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Property: "https://example.netlify.app/", "example.com" (URL-prefix, https assumed) or "sc-domain:example.com" (domain property). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral constraint those annotations cannot express: the site must already be verified, making the call contingent on a prior step. It does not describe failure modes for an unverified site, keeping it out of the 5 band.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the core action and its prerequisite both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, an output schema absent, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the one missing piece (the verify_site prerequisite). Only a note about error behavior for unverified sites would make it fully complete.
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% and the 'site' property description already carries the format examples (URL-prefix vs. sc-domain). The tool description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 for fully-documented schemas applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Adds a VERIFIED site to Search Console'), includes the underlying API method (sites.add), and the 'VERIFIED' qualifier scopes it against the sibling verify_site. An agent can tell this is the registration step that follows verification rather than a sibling like list_sites or setup_site.
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?
'Run verify_site first' gives an explicit prerequisite and ordering against a named sibling, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or what to do on failure, so it falls just below the top band.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.