Retrieve child URL details from a parent URL to analyze website structure and identify subpages for Bing Webmaster Tools.
Get information about child URLs under a parent URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_url | Yes | ||
| parent_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 only says 'Get information' and never discloses result scope, recursion/depth behavior, pagination, or any side effects. The ambiguity of 'under a parent URL' is a meaningful behavioral gap.
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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The action and primary resource are front-loaded, and every word 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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the main gap. However, with no annotations and minimal parameter semantics, the description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection and correct invocation, especially given the similar sibling get_children_url_traffic_info.
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%, and the description only echoes 'parent URL' without defining site_url or explaining how the two required parameters relate. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('child URLs under a parent URL'), which helps separate it from single-URL siblings like get_url_info. However, 'information' is generic and does not clarify whether this overlaps with get_children_url_traffic_info.
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?
There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of related child-URL or traffic-info siblings. The intended usage is only implied by the name and one-line description; no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.