Retrieve query performance statistics from Bing Webmaster Tools. Analyze top queries for any site by specifying date range and output format.
Get query performance stats from Bing Webmaster Tools (Top Queries)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The URL of the site | |
| startDate | No | Start date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| endDate | No | End date (YYYY-MM-DD) | |
| limit | No | Max rows to return (default: 1000) | |
| format | No | Output format (default: json) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read operation ('Get'), but fails to disclose additional behaviors such as authorization needs, rate limiting, or whether it only returns the 'top' queries. Adequate for a basic query tool but lacks depth.
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?
Extremely concise, one sentence. However, it could be structured with more details (e.g., output format, date range behavior). Still efficient, but not optimal for clarity.
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 5 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain what the returned stats contain, how to interpret them, or any constraints (e.g., default limit of 1000 rows). Leaves agents guessing about the data structure.
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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves query performance stats from Bing Webmaster Tools, specifically 'Top Queries'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and while it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like bing_analytics_page_query or bing_get_top_queries, the focus on 'Top Queries' provides some distinction.
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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., bing_analytics_query_page, bing_analytics_trends). Lacks context on prerequisites, like needing a siteUrl or date range boundaries.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.