Request Bing to immediately fetch a specific URL for indexing. Provide site URL and target URL to trigger crawling.
Request Bing to fetch a specific URL immediately.
Args: site_url: The URL of the site url: The URL to fetch
Raises: BingWebmasterError: If URL cannot be fetched
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| site_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it fetches a URL and raises an error if it cannot be fetched. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., triggering a crawl), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it's a write operation. This is minimal disclosure for an action tool.
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 concise and well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, and exceptions. It avoids fluff and front-loads the action. However, it is extremely terse and omits useful context, which affects other dimensions, but for pure conciseness it is appropriately sized.
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 tool with no annotations and minimal description, the information is incomplete for safe and correct use. It lacks details about prerequisites (e.g., site must be verified), potential side effects, return behavior (though output schema exists, it's not referenced), and how it differs from submit_url. An agent would not know when to invoke this tool with confidence.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists 'site_url: The URL of the site' and 'url: The URL to fetch', which adds a basic distinction but does not clarify the relationship (e.g., site_url is the verified site root, url is the specific page). No format, constraints, or examples are given.
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 states a clear action: 'Request Bing to fetch a specific URL immediately.' It identifies the resource (URL) and the operation (fetch). It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like submit_url or get_fetched_urls, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions, exclusions, or refer to any sibling tool. The agent is left to infer that it's for immediate fetching, but no explicit context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.