Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bing-webmaster-mcp

bing-webmaster-mcp

by R1tom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sitemaps

Retrieve XML feeds Bing knows for a specified site, showing status, URL count, and last crawl date.

Instructions

Sitemaps and feeds Bing knows for the site, with status, URL count and last crawl.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site_url": "<site_url>"
    },
    "name": "sitemaps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_urlYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned fields (status, URL count, last crawl) but says nothing about permissions, auth requirements, or whether the operation is read-only or mutating.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It packs the resource and returned fields efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the tool takes only one simple parameter. However, with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves behavioral and input-format gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the sole parameter site_url is undocumented in the schema. The description references 'the site' but adds no format, syntax, or example for site_url, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific resource ('Sitemaps and feeds Bing knows for the site') and implies a read/retrieval action, which distinguishes it from the write-oriented sibling submit_sitemap. It is clear but never explicitly names a sibling or verb to fully differentiate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like submit_sitemap or crawl_health. The agent must infer usage entirely from context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools