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

bing-webmaster-mcp

by R1tom
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

url_info

Check whether Bing knows a URL and retrieve its discovery date, last crawl, HTTP status, inbound links, and Bing clicks and impressions.

Instructions

Whether Bing knows a URL: discovery date, last crawl, HTTP status, inbound links and its Bing clicks/impressions.

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>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "url_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
site_urlYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the returned fields (which matters since there is no output schema), but says nothing about read-only semantics, authentication, or that site_url implies scoped access to a verified property.

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 filler. The field list is dense but earns its place given no output schema; only the slightly awkward 'Whether Bing knows a URL' opener costs a point.

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?

The description adequately covers the return contents, which is the biggest gap left by the missing output schema. However, with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation for two required arguments, an agent still lacks the information needed to call it correctly and confidently.

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 coverage is 0% — neither 'url' nor 'site_url' is documented anywhere. The description never mentions the parameters, so it fails to compensate for the gap; notably it does not clarify how a bare URL relates to the required site_url.

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 resource (a URL in Bing's index) and enumerates what it returns: discovery date, last crawl, HTTP status, inbound links, clicks/impressions. This distinguishes it from siblings like crawl_health and backlinks, though the framing 'whether Bing knows a URL' is slightly indirect rather than a clear verb.

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 named alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to prefer this over backlinks, traffic_trend, or crawl_health for similar questions.

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