Retrieve Bing search queries associated with a specific page by providing your verified site URL and page URL to see which queries drive traffic to that page.
Consultas asociadas a una página en Bing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageUrl | Yes | URL completa que pertenece al sitio. | |
| siteUrl | Yes | URL exacta de la propiedad verificada. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — it says nothing about what data comes back, whether results are aggregated by query, time-range limitations, or Bing API quotas.
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 short sentence with zero padding and the key resource front-loaded. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal 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?
For a tool with no output schema, the description should say something about the returned data (queries with impressions/clicks? ranked list?) and disambiguate it from the many sibling query tools. Neither is present, so an agent cannot fully predict the result or confirm it picked the right sibling.
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 100%, with both pageUrl and siteUrl documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not clarify the relationship between the two parameters (that pageUrl must belong to siteUrl) beyond what the schema already states.
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?
The one-line description names a specific resource relationship (queries associated with a page) plus the data source (Bing), so an agent can tell it retrieves search-query data for a given URL. However, it never distinguishes itself from near-identical siblings such as bing_query_pages (the inverse relation) or bing_top_queries, leaving the agent to infer the difference from the tool names alone.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., a verified Bing property is required, implied only by the schema), and no mention of when to prefer bing_query_pages or bing_top_queries instead. The agent has to derive usage from the tool name and required parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.