Google Search Console MCP + Bing Webmaster Tools

Bing crawl issues

get_bing_crawl_issues

Read-onlyIdempotent

Bing crawl issues: URLs Bing could not crawl properly for a site, with the issue type, HTTP code and inbound link count. Free.

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": {
      "siteUrl": "<siteUrl>"
    },
    "name": "get_bing_crawl_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Most rows to return, 1 to 500. Default 100.
`siteUrl`	Yes	Site URL exactly as registered in Bing Webmaster Tools, for example https://example.com/.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`issues`	Yes
`siteUrl`	Yes
`nextStep`	No	Optional suggestion for the user's next step. Mention it once when it helps; never open it or act on it automatically.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / nextStep

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "description": "Optional suggestion for the user's next step. Mention it once when it helps; never open it or act on it automatically.",
+  "properties": {
+    "label": {
+      "description": "Short suggestion to show the user.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "description": "Page in the user's CrakSEO account.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "label",
+    "url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuinely new behavioral fact — the call is "Free" (no quota consumption) — but says nothing about result volume, paging behavior, or how stale the data is.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the resource, then the returned fields, then the cost note. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Output schema and full parameter coverage mean the description needn't explain returns or arguments. What remains missing is the operational context an agent needs to choose this tool over siblings and to interpret an empty result — for example whether an empty list means no issues or a not-yet-processed site.

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%, with limit's 1–500 range and the exact-URL format for siteUrl both documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (URLs Bing could not crawl for a site) plus the fields returned (issue type, HTTP code, inbound link count), which clearly separates it from siblings like get_bing_webmaster_stats or list_sitemaps. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from the field list that this is the diagnostic tool to reach for after seeing crawl errors elsewhere in the Bing webmaster family.

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

All Google Search Console MCP + Bing Webmaster Tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?