get_keyword_statsRetrieve historical Bing keyword impressions for research, independent of your site. Query by keyword with optional country and language to gauge search interest.
Historical Bing impressions for a keyword (keyword research; not tied to your site).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Keyword | |
| country | No | Country code, e.g. us, es, mx (optional) | |
| language | No | Language, e.g. en-US, es-ES (optional) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is covered. The description adds that the data is Bing-sourced, historical, and independent of the user's site, which is useful context but stops short of return format, time range, or granularity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its data source, with the parenthetical scoping constraint packed in at no cost. Nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and while it says what kind of data comes back (Bing impressions), it omits time window, granularity, and metric units. Adequate to select the tool, but thin for interpreting results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (q, country, language are each documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or default guidance for any of the three parameters, so it does not exceed that baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names the exact resource (historical Bing impressions for a keyword) and explicitly scopes it as site-independent, which separates it from site-tied siblings like get_query_stats. The phrasing is a noun clause rather than a verb, but an agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'keyword research; not tied to your site' implies the context of use and gives a when-not signal (site-specific data belongs elsewhere), but it never names the alternative tool or states when this is the right choice over get_related_keywords or get_query_stats. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.