Retrieve daily Bing clicks and impressions for a verified site over an inclusive date range, enabling search performance analysis and data availability checks.
Métricas diarias de Bing para un rango inclusivo. Bing puede tardar en disponer de datos de sitios nuevos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endDate | Yes | Fecha YYYY-MM-DD. | |
| siteUrl | Yes | URL exacta de la propiedad verificada. | |
| startDate | Yes | Fecha YYYY-MM-DD. |
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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes genuinely new behavior: Bing data latency for newly added sites. It does not address freshness of existing data, row limits, or response shape.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core scope is front-loaded. The latency caveat is properly placed as a secondary note.
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 read-only, no-output-schema, three-required-parameter tool, the essentials are present, but it never names the returned metrics or the per-day granularity implications (row volume per date range) that an agent would want before calling. The Spanish-language description amid otherwise English siblings is also a minor consistency gap.
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 coverage is 100%, so siteUrl and both dates are already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The phrase 'rango inclusivo' does add a small clarification that both endpoints are counted, which the schema does not state explicitly.
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 says it returns daily Bing metrics for an inclusive range, which is a specific resource and scope, but the actual metrics (clicks and impressions) are only inferable from the tool name, not stated in the text. It also does not distinguish itself from near-siblings like gsc_search_performance or bing_top_pages.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many sibling analytics tools (bing_top_pages, gsc_search_performance, bing_page_queries). The second sentence addresses data latency, which is behavioral context rather than usage routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.