Bing Webmaster Tools MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_url_traffic_info

Get traffic data for specific URLs from Bing Webmaster Tools. Use this to check search performance and identify visitor trends.

Instructions

Get traffic information for specific URLs.

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>",
      "urls": "<urls>"
    },
    "name": "get_url_traffic_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`urls`	Yes
`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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the operation type. It does not disclose whether results are aggregated per URL, what 'traffic information' includes, whether site_url acts as a filter, or any access/limits constraints.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though this brevity comes at the cost of the behavioral and parameter context that other dimensions penalize.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has two required parameters, no annotations, and a large sibling family; the description leaves critical selection and invocation context unclear. A short note on the site_url/urls relationship and scope versus get_children_url_traffic_info would materially improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

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 compensate. It never explains the role of site_url, the format of the urls array, or how the two parameters relate, leaving both required parameters effectively undocumented.

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 identifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('traffic information for specific URLs'), so an agent can tell this is a read operation on URL-level traffic data. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from adjacent siblings such as get_url_info or get_children_url_traffic_info beyond the words 'traffic information.'

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 on when to choose this tool over alternatives. The sibling list contains several traffic- and URL-related tools, and the description neither states exclusions nor names a more appropriate sibling.

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