Fetch Bing page performance data by normalizing query fields to pages, showing clicks and impressions per page for a site over a set period.
Return Bing page performance, normalizing Bing's Query field to page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the page-normalization behavior, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, default window behavior, pagination, or how the 'Query to page' rollup affects returned rows. For a stats tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotations.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a stats tool with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no usage routing, the description leaves the agent without enough to select it confidently over the several Bing/analytics siblings.
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% across three parameters (site, days, limit), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. It never clarifies what 'site' format is expected, that 'days' is the lookback window, or what 'limit' caps. The intuitive parameter names are the only guide, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Return Bing page performance') and adds a scoping note ('normalizing Bing's Query field to page') that implicitly distinguishes it from bing_query_stats and bing_page_query_stats. The purpose is clear, though it does not name the sibling alternatives explicitly and never says which metrics 'performance' includes.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the phrase 'normalizing ... to page' that this is the page-level aggregation tool versus bing_query_stats or bing_page_query_stats. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.