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

bing-seo-mcp

by skiddgoddamn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

bing_site_add

Add a verified site URL to your Bing Webmaster Tools account for site management and SEO monitoring.

Instructions

Bing: add a site to the account.

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_site_add"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'add a site' with no details on side effects, required permissions, or whether the site must be pre-verified. Lacks critical transparency for an action tool.

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 (one sentence), which could be concise, but it is under-specified. It earns its place but does not add enough value for its brevity.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return value, error states, prerequisite steps, or integration with other tools (e.g., bing_site_verify). Lacks completeness for an agent to use reliably.

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 description coverage is 100% with one parameter 'site_url' having a clear description and example. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'add a site to the account.' It specifies the resource (site) and verb (add). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like bing_site_verify or bing_sites_get, lacking specificity on what 'add' entails (e.g., registration, indexing).

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 vs alternatives. No prerequisites or context (e.g., need API key? site already verified?). The description is purely functional without usage context.

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