Decode Bing crawl issue flags via the synthetic-fixture contract to diagnose indexing problems. Provide a site and optional limit to return actionable crawl error details.
Decode Bing crawl issue flags using the synthetic-fixture contract.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Decode' weakly implies a read operation, but there is no statement about safety, permissions, rate limits, mutation risk, or what the synthetic-fixture contract entails.
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?
It is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is cryptic rather than self-contained. The sentence does not earn its place because the key term 'synthetic-fixture contract' remains unexplained.
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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the definition is completely inadequate. It does not explain what flags are returned, how the contract works, or how to interpret the required site input.
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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters (site, limit), and the description adds no meaning about what 'site' expects or what 'limit' controls. The description fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.
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 verb (Decode) and resource (Bing crawl issue flags), which distinguishes it from siblings like bing_crawl_stats and bing_crawl_settings_get. However, the phrase 'synthetic-fixture contract' is opaque jargon that does not clarify what the tool actually does or what 'flags' are decoded.
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 alternatives such as bing_crawl_stats or bing_url_info. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.