bing-seo-mcp

bing_keyword_get

Obtain Bing keyword impression data for exact queries, filtered by country, language, and date range.

Instructions

Bing: get impression/keyword data for an exact query.

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": {
      "q": "<q>",
      "country": "<country>",
      "language": "<language>",
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>"
    },
    "name": "bing_keyword_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	Yes	Keyword/query
`country`	Yes	Country code, e.g. us, ru
`end_date`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD
`language`	Yes	Language code, e.g. en-US, ru-RU
`start_date`	Yes	YYYY-MM-DD

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only, required permissions, or page limits. The bare 'get' is insufficient.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short, but it is concise. However, it is too brief to earn its place fully; it could include more context without being verbose.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks return value details and edge-case behavior, making it incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 states the tool retrieves impression/keyword data for an exact query, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like bing_related_keywords, missing some clarity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bing_related_keywords or query stats tools. The agent has no context for selection.

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