Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SEO Data MCP

SEO Data MCP

by pabsamuel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

bing_crawl_issues

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve crawl issues from Bing Webmaster for a verified site to diagnose indexing and crawling problems.

Instructions

Read Bing Webmaster crawl issues for a verified site. Paid.

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": "<site>"
    },
    "name": "bing_crawl_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds two important behavioral facts beyond annotations: the call is paid and the site must be verified. It does not detail cost tiers, rate limits, or return format, keeping it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The 'Paid.' fragment is terse but communicates a critical constraint in minimal space.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with rich annotations, the description is adequately complete on safety and cost. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what crawl issues are returned or how to interpret them, and the site parameter remains underspecified.

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 carries the burden for the single 'site' parameter. It adds that the site must be verified, which is useful, but it does not clarify whether the value should be a domain, full URL, or site identifier, nor how verification should be represented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read Bing Webmaster crawl issues. It adds the 'verified site' scope qualifier. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like bing_query_stats or gsc_inspect, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The only guidance is the prerequisite 'for a verified site' and the cost note 'Paid.' There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to sibling tools such as bing_query_stats or gsc_inspect.

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