Analyze Bing traffic data to identify performance anomalies. Set a custom time range and threshold to detect unexpected changes in site traffic from Bing.
Detect performance anomalies in Bing traffic
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The URL of the site | |
| days | No | Number of days to check (default 14) | |
| threshold | No | Anomaly threshold (default 2.5) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention whether the tool is read-only, what the output format is, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The only behavioral clue is the verb 'Detect', which implies analysis but lacks transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb. However, it could benefit from additional context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context on what constitutes an anomaly, how the detection works, and what the tool returns. The current description is too sparse for an AI agent to invoke correctly without guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how 'threshold' affects anomaly detection or what 'days' range is valid. It is adequate but not improved.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Detect' and the resource 'performance anomalies in Bing traffic', making the purpose specific. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'analytics_anomalies', which may have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 sibling list includes many analytics tools, but the description lacks context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent uncertain about selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.