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

bing-webmaster-mcp

by R1tom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

submit_sitemap

Submit or resubmit a sitemap for a given site and sitemap URL to Bing Webmaster Tools, helping search engines discover and crawl pages.

Instructions

Submit or resubmit a sitemap to Bing.

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>",
      "sitemap_url": "<sitemap_url>"
    },
    "name": "submit_sitemap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_urlYes
sitemap_urlYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 and mostly fails: it says nothing about required site verification, whether the sitemap must belong to site_url, rate limits, or failure modes. The output schema covers return values, but for a mutation/submission tool this leaves significant gaps.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that useful context was sacrificed rather than trimmed.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a submission tool with an output schema present, the description still omits prerequisites, parameter roles, and failure/success expectations. The agent has enough to attempt a call but not enough to call it correctly the first time.

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%, so the description must compensate, yet it only vaguely alludes to 'a sitemap' and 'Bing'. It never clarifies the distinction between site_url (the verified property) and sitemap_url, nor their expected formats.

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?

States a specific verb (submit/resubmit) plus resource (sitemap) and destination (Bing), so the agent immediately knows the operation. It implicitly separates itself from submit_urls (URLs vs sitemap) and sitemaps, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

The word 'resubmit' hints that repeat submission is allowed, but there is no statement of when to use this versus submit_urls or sitemaps, and no prerequisites (e.g., site ownership/verification) are given. The agent must infer the routing.

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