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

mcp-server-bing-webmaster

by isiahw1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

verify_site

Verify site ownership in Bing Webmaster Tools to access analytics and manage search performance.

Instructions

Attempt to verify ownership of a site

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>"
    },
    "name": "verify_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_urlYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It hints at an 'attempt' (implying possible failure) but lacks details on success/failure conditions, authentication needs, rate limits, or what verification entails. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves permissions or external checks.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, for a verification tool that may involve complex outcomes, it lacks context on what verification means or how results are interpreted, leaving gaps.

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. It doesn't explain the 'site_url' parameter beyond what's implied by the tool name, such as format requirements (e.g., full URL vs. domain) or examples. This leaves the parameter meaning vague.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('verify ownership') and target resource ('site'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_site' or 'get_sites', which also deal with sites but have different purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., site must exist), exclusions, or related tools like 'add_site' for initial setup, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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