Retrieves Bing crawl and indexing information for a specific URL, helping verify whether a page is discovered, indexed, and eligible for search visibility.
Información de rastreo e indexación de una URL según la API de Bing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes only the fact that data comes from the Bing API, without disclosing what fields are returned (index status, canonical, crawl date), whether the site must be verified, or any quota behavior.
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 well-formed sentence with no redundancy, but it is undersized for the task: it front-loads the domain rather than the action, and stops before anything actionable is said. Brevity here reads as under-specification rather than economy.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, yet it only says 'tracking and indexing information' without naming any returned concept. For a read tool in a dense SEO sibling set, that leaves the agent unable to predict whether results answer an indexation question or a crawl question.
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 'url' and 'siteUrl' documented as full URL and verified-property URL respectively, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further semantics about the relationship between the two parameters or format constraints.
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 description names the resource and domain ('Información de rastreo e indexación de una URL según la API de Bing'), so an agent can tell it returns per-URL indexing/crawl data from Bing. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like gsc_inspect_url, bing_crawl_stats, or bing_crawl_issues, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The agent must guess whether to reach for this versus gsc_inspect_url (Google inspection) or the aggregate bing_crawl_stats, which is the main ambiguity given the crowded SEO sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.