Retrieve observed traffic and derived CTR for a specific site URL without rank fields, so you can analyze click performance separately from rankings.
Return observed URL traffic and derived CTR without rank fields.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| site | Yes |
| 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, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read ('observed traffic') but never states read-only status, auth requirements, or what 'observed traffic' actually measures (impressions vs. clicks) or the CTR derivation window. Only 'derived CTR' adds any behavioral signal.
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 or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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. But with no annotations, zero parameter documentation, and no usage routing against the many bing_* siblings, the definition leaves too much unspecified for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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?
Two required parameters ('site', 'url') at 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about either — no expected format, no site/url relationship. With no compensation in the description, the agent cannot tell what values are valid.
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 ('Return') and resource ('observed URL traffic and derived CTR'), and the clause 'without rank fields' implicitly distinguishes it from the rank-bearing sibling bing_rank_traffic_stats. It is clear what it returns, though it doesn't state what the tool is used for.
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 named alternatives. 'Without rank fields' hints at a contrast with bing_rank_traffic_stats / bing_page_stats but never says which sibling to pick or under what condition, leaving the agent to infer routing from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.