Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bing-seo-mcp

bing-seo-mcp

by skiddgoddamn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

bing_page_query_stats

Retrieve query statistics for a specific page in Bing Webmaster Tools, including clicks, impressions, and average position for searched keywords.

Instructions

Bing: get query stats for a specific page.

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>",
      "page": "<page>"
    },
    "name": "bing_page_query_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageYesPage URL
site_urlYesVerified site URL, e.g. https://example.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 only states 'get query stats', implying a read operation but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, rate limits, or any response characteristics. A simple 'get' is insufficient for transparency.

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 extremely concise at one sentence with no redundant information. Every word is necessary, and the format is clear and front-loaded.

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 lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not explain what 'query stats' includes (e.g., impressions, clicks, etc.) or the response format, leaving significant gaps.

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% with descriptions for both 'page' and 'site_url'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline. No clarification on format or constraints.

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 that the tool gets query stats for a specific page. The verb 'get' and resource 'query stats for a specific page' are specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like bing_query_stats or bing_page_stats, leaving ambiguity about the exact scope.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or compare with sibling tools, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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