Retrieve Bing crawl and indexing details for a specific URL in a verified site to diagnose SEO visibility issues.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only informational lookup via 'Información', but does not disclose permissions, rate limits, whether the site must be verified, response behavior, or any other operational trait.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a brief tool description, even if additional details are missing elsewhere.
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 simple two-parameter lookup with complete schema descriptions, the description is minimally sufficient to identify the tool's subject. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits return-value expectations and usage context that would help an agent 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and both required parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 the specific resource (una URL) and the domain/source (API de Bing) for crawl and indexing information. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings such as gsc_inspect_url or bing_crawl_issues.
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 alternatives, and no prerequisites beyond referencing the Bing API. An agent must infer that this is the Bing URL-inspection tool rather than one of the many sibling Bing/GSC tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.