Retrieve submitted URLs and their fetch status for a site by providing the site URL.
Get a list of URLs that have been submitted for fetching.
Args: site_url: The URL of the site
Returns: List[FetchedUrl]: List of fetched URLs and their status
Raises: BingWebmasterError: If fetched URLs cannot be retrieved
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 states the operation is read-only (via 'Get'), returns a List[FetchedUrl] with status, and raises a BingWebmasterError on failure. However, it does not disclose potential rate limits, pagination, or any side effects. It is adequate but not comprehensive for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 exceptionally concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by Args, Returns, and Raises sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, return type, and error behavior. It lacks explicit usage guidance and alternative routing, but those are addressed in other dimensions. Given the low complexity, it is fairly complete for an agent to call it correctly.
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 only provides 'site_url: The URL of the site,' which adds negligible meaning beyond the parameter name. No format, examples, or constraints are given. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct a valid site_url value.
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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Get a list of URLs that have been submitted for fetching.' This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_url (initiates a fetch) and get_fetched_url_details (details of a single fetched URL). The purpose is specific and immediately understood.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need a list of fetched URLs) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. It lacks guidance like 'use get_fetched_url_details for individual URL details' or 'use submit_url to submit new URLs.' The context is clear but no explicit routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.