Bing Webmaster Tools MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_site_roles

Lists users with access to a site, clarifying who can manage or view it. Use this to audit permissions and verify site access in Bing Webmaster Tools.

Instructions

Get list of users with access to the 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": "get_site_roles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a read-like action but does not disclose details such as pagination, whether only direct roles are returned or inherited roles are included, permission requirements, or limitations.

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 short, front-loaded single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it misses opportunities to add useful context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, has an output schema, and only one parameter, so the bar for completeness is lower. Still, with no annotations, no usage guidance, and no behavioral details, the description is only minimally adequate for an agent to select and call the tool correctly.

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%, and the description does not clarify how site_url should be formatted or what exactly counts as 'the site.' The parameter name and title provide basic meaning, but the description adds no compensating detail.

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: getting a list of users with access to a site. This is distinguishable from the many URL/stats-oriented sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, such as get_sites or other site-related tools. The context is only implied by the 'site' wording and the site_url parameter.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.