bing-seo-mcp

bing_block_url_remove

Remove a blocked URL from Bing search results to restore its indexing and visibility.

Instructions

Bing: remove a URL block.

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>",
      "blocked_url": "<blocked_url>",
      "entity_type": "<entity_type>"
    },
    "name": "bing_block_url_remove"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`site_url`	Yes	Verified site URL, e.g. https://example.com
`blocked_url`	Yes
`entity_type`	Yes	0 Page, 1 Directory

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authorization needs, side effects, or irreversible operations. The minimal description carries the full burden but fails to deliver.

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence, no wasted words. However, it lacks structuring such as bullet points or sectioning that could improve scannability.

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?

Given no output schema and simple parameters, the description is too sparse. It omits expected return format or success indicators, leaving the agent without enough context for reliable usage.

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 67%, but the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. The 'blocked_url' parameter lacks a description, and the description does not clarify parameter usage or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'remove' and the resource 'URL block', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'bing_block_url_add'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description provides no contextual cues for selection.

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