Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
seo-mcp

seo-mcp

by patchwindow
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

bing_url_inspection

Inspect a URL's indexing and crawl status in Bing Webmaster Tools. Returns HTTP status, indexing state, crawl date, page title, link counts, and blockage info.

Instructions

Inspect a URL's indexing and crawl status in Bing Webmaster Tools. Returns HTTP status, indexing state, crawl date, page title, link counts, and whether the URL is blocked.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "bing_url_inspection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe exact URL to inspect.
site_urlNoYour site URL in Bing Webmaster Tools, e.g. 'https://example.com/'. Uses config default if omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as inspection with no behavioral disclosure (e.g., readOnly, impact on Bing, rate limits). The list of returned fields is helpful but does not cover behavioral traits.

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?

The description is a single paragraph with no wasted words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose and return data.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description lists key return fields (HTTP status, indexing state, etc.), making it reasonably complete. It could mention error handling or unspecified URL scenarios.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions. The description adds value by noting that site_url uses a config default if omitted, which goes beyond the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool inspects a URL's indexing and crawl status in Bing Webmaster Tools, listing specific return values. It is distinct from sibling tools like gsc_url_inspection (Google) and bing_crawl_health (aggregate health).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when needing to inspect a specific URL's status, but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from other Bing tools.

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