Asking a person

Four of the 21 tools do something Google will not give back. All four ask a person first.

Not a confirm: true argument the model can set. Not a token the model reads out of its own previous result. A dialog, raised through MCP elicitation, that goes to the client and is shown to whoever is sitting there.

The specification says a client should keep a human in the loop:

there SHOULD always be a human in the loop with the ability to deny tool invocations

This server does not rely on that. It raises the question itself, and until an answer comes back, nothing happens.

What asks, and when

Tool	What it costs
delete_site	roughly 16 months of performance history. Re-adding starts empty
unverify_site	owner access; every property for that site drops to 403, and the Indexing API stops working
update_site_owners	everyone not in the list you pass
delete_sitemap	submission history and error report — the least severe, submit_sitemap puts it back
everything else	never asks

update_site_owners is on that list despite reading like an update: the list it takes is the complete owner list afterwards, so one well-formed call removes everyone else, and nothing here can put them back.

request_indexing, submit_sitemap, verify_site and add_site are deliberately not on it. They add or ask for something and take nothing away.

What the dialog contains

Property URLs, sitemap URLs and owner lists — but only the two sentences at the top are the server's own. Everything a caller or Google supplied is quoted below them, under a heading saying so.

That matters more here than in most servers: search queries are strings arbitrary members of the public typed into Google, and page titles come from whoever runs the crawled site. Someone who wants a model to act on their instructions can put them in a page title and wait to be crawled.

This will give up ownership of https://example.com/.

Every property for that site drops to 403, and the Indexing API stops working.
Re-verifying means placing the token again.

The approval is bound to its target, so one obtained for a call cannot be replayed against another. For a set of targets the binding is a fingerprint of the exact list: an approval for ["a"] does not execute ["a", "b"].

Clients that cannot show a dialog

Not every MCP client implements elicitation, and a stateless gateway may not be able to speak for the one it is currently serving. Rather than refuse to work — which pushes people towards switching the guard off entirely — the tool falls back to a two-call token: the first call returns a random string, the second has to quote it back.

Be clear about what that proves, because this server is:

the token proves the call was made twice with the same arguments, and nothing more.

A model can read the token out of the first result and call again in the same turn without anybody seeing it. It catches a widened target set; it does not catch a model that was talked into the whole thing. The fallback text says so rather than implying somebody approved.

Switching the dialog off

ELICITATION=false

Default is true. false does not remove the guard — it takes the fallback path above, which means the token. There is no setting in which a guarded call goes unannounced.

Use it where a dialog is the wrong shape rather than an unwanted one: a scheduled job, a test harness, a client whose dialog interrupts something else.

It is deliberately not prefixed

ELICITATION has no GSC_ in front of it, so one export ELICITATION=false — or one -e ELICITATION=false in a compose file — reaches every MCP server in that environment, not just this one. That is the point of it and also its risk.

Two things make it visible rather than silent:

• a server started with it off prints one line at startup, in the log of every server it actually reached:

  google-search-console-mcp: ELICITATION=false — guarded tools fall back to the two-call token

• the fallback text names the server that did not ask, instead of blaming a client that was working fine. :::

Anything other than true or false — 1, off, yes — stops the server with exit code 1 and a message naming both valid values. This is the only variable in this family that defaults to on: a typo that fell back to the default would leave the dialog running while the operator believed it was off, and there would be nothing to tell them.

Annotations are the other half, and they are only a hint

Every tool of this server declares all four MCP tool annotations — readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint — so a client can tell before it calls what a call would do. See Tools.

They are advice, and the specification says so:

clients MUST consider tool annotations to be untrusted unless they come from trusted servers

An annotation is something a client may ignore. The dialog is not: it is enforced here, on the server side, and no answer means no change. The two are different claims — the annotation says what a call does, the dialog decides whether it happens — which is why a tool can be marked destructive without being guarded. submit_sitemap is the other way round: it is a write that takes nothing away, so it is destructiveHint: false and not asked about.

Behind a gateway

Both protocol revisions are handled from one code path. On 2025-11-25 the question is pushed to the client; on 2026-07-28 there is no server→client channel at all, so the call returns input_required, ends, and the client retries carrying the answer.

That answer arrives as ordinary request content, which the SDK does not validate — so the state that ties an answer to its question is sealed (HMAC). A reply whose seal does not open, or opens onto a different target, counts as no answer and produces a fresh question rather than an error. The likeliest cause is not an attack: it is a gateway that put the server to sleep while the person was reading.

If you run this behind mcp-hub, the hub passes elicitation through in both directions; see its elicitation guide.