Analyze site query performance in Bing to detect rising or declining trends using adjustable timeframes, percentage thresholds, and minimum clicks.
Detect rising or declining trends in Bing query performance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| siteUrl | Yes | The URL of the site | |
| days | No | Number of days to analyze (default 28) | |
| threshold | No | Minimum percentage change (default 10) | |
| minClicks | No | Minimum clicks required (default 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the purpose without revealing details like output format, whether the tool returns a list of queries, thresholds for trend detection, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that analyzes performance metrics.
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 that immediately conveys the core function. It is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded with additional context without losing conciseness.
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 the lack of output schema and the tool's analytical nature (detecting trends), the description is too brief. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., ranked lists, percentage changes), how the trend detection works, or what parameters like 'days' and 'threshold' influence. More context is needed for effective use.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's meaning. The description adds no further context beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.
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 tool's purpose: detecting rising or declining trends in Bing query performance. It uses a specific verb ('detect') and specifies the resource ('Bing query performance'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'bing_analytics_detect_anomalies' or 'bing_analytics_time_series', but the focus on 'trends' provides some differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as 'bing_analytics_detect_anomalies' or 'bing_analytics_compare_periods' exist, but no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.