Retrieve all sitemaps Google Search Console knows for a property, including last download time, errors, warnings, and submitted URL counts to monitor indexing health.
Sitemaps known to Search Console for a property, with last download, errors, warnings and submitted counts.
| 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?
OpenWorldHint and readOnlyHint already declare that this is a safe, far-reaching read operation, so the annotation bar is lower. The description usefully discloses the return payload (last download, errors, warnings, submitted counts). It does not add anything about auth requirements or pagination, so a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scoping 'for a property' arrives before the return-field listing. 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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it names the four key fields. That, combined with the rich parameter schema and read-only annotations, is nearly complete; only auth/prerequisite context is missing.
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%, so the schema already documents the single 'site' parameter in detail, including URL-prefix and sc-domain formats. The description only echoes 'for a property' and adds no format or syntax meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.
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 names a specific resource (sitemaps in Search Console) scoped to a property, and enumerates the returned fields, which distinguishes it from the other sitemap siblings (check_sitemap, submit_sitemap). It lacks an explicit listing verb, but the intent is unmistakable. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus check_sitemap, submit_sitemap, or inspect_url. No prerequisites (auth requirements) or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.