bing-seo-mcp

bing_submit_content

Submit a URL and its HTTP response content to Bing for indexing. Requires verified site URL and base64-encoded full HTTP message.

Instructions

Bing: submit a URL together with its HTTP content (content submission API).

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>",
      "url": "<url>",
      "http_message": "<http_message>"
    },
    "name": "bing_submit_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`site_url`	Yes	Verified site URL, e.g. https://example.com
`http_message`	Yes	Base64 of the full HTTP response (headers+body) per Bing spec
`dynamic_serving`	No	0 none,1 desktop,2 mobile,3 AMP
`structured_data`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is responsible for behavioral transparency. It only mentions submission but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, deduplication behavior, or any side effects beyond submission.

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 a single sentence, but it is adequately concise. However, it could be restructured to include key behavioral details without sacrificing brevity. It's not overly verbose but lacks depth.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is too brief to be complete. It omits return value hints, usage prerequisites, and typical scenarios, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 60% (three parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. For the two undocumented parameters (url, dynamic_serving), no extra context is provided.

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?

The description clearly states the tool submits a URL with its HTTP content, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like bing_submit_url, which likely only submits a URL.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bing_submit_url or bing_submit_url_batch. The phrase 'content submission API' gives a hint but no clear when or when-not conditions.

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