Identify the likely cause of a Bing traffic drop by analyzing site URL, lookback period, and anomaly threshold to pinpoint issues.
Identify the likely cause of a Bing traffic drop
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The URL of the site | |
| days | No | Lookback period in days (default 30) | |
| threshold | No | Anomaly threshold (default 2.0) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states a vague outcome ('identify the likely cause') without explaining how the tool operates, whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the output format is. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, though it sacrifices depth for brevity. Given the tool's simplicity, this is appropriate but leaves other dimensions under-served.
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?
Despite having 3 parameters (1 required) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain return values, how the cause is determined, or any behavioral traits. For a tool with many siblings, completeness is lacking.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100% and all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, so no improvement is needed.
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?
Description states the verb 'Identify' and resource 'the likely cause of a Bing traffic drop', making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'bing_analytics_detect_anomalies' or the generic 'analytics_drop_attribution'.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. Given many sibling tools with overlapping functionality, this is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.