bing-seo-mcp

bing_crawl_issues

Retrieve crawl errors for a verified site in Bing Webmaster Tools to identify and fix indexation problems.

Instructions

Bing: get crawl issues (errors) for a 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": "bing_crawl_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site_url`	Yes	Verified site URL, e.g. https://example.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states a read operation ('get') without disclosing authentication needs, rate limits, or what constitutes a 'crawl issue'. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing about side effects or prerequisites.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose. It is efficient but could include a brief example or note on output format without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose. However, it lacks detail on the return format or any prerequisites, leaving minor gaps for an agent. An example of expected output would improve completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'site_url', which is clearly described as a verified site URL. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 clearly identifies the verb 'get' and resource 'crawl issues (errors)' for a specific site. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bing_crawl_stats' but does not explicitly contrast or differentiate.

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 crawl errors are needed but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bing_crawl_stats' or 'bing_page_stats'. No exclusions or context are given.

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