Retrieve historical keyword statistics from Bing with optional country and language filters for targeted analysis.
Get historical stats for a keyword in Bing
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | The keyword to research | |
| country | No | Optional country code (e.g., US) | |
| language | No | Optional language code (e.g., en-US) |
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 must disclose behavior. Only states 'Get historical stats' without explaining what data is returned, time range, or any restrictions. Lacks detail on mutation or safety.
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?
Single sentence, no extraneous words. Efficiently conveys core function.
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?
No output schema; description fails to mention what historical statistics are returned (e.g., impressions, clicks, CPC). Lacks context on time range or data granularity. Incomplete for a stats tool.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. Tool description adds no extra meaning beyond schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Get', resource 'historical stats for a keyword', and platform 'Bing'. It distinguishes from siblings like bing_related_keywords that focus on related keywords rather than stats.
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 vs alternatives like bing_related_keywords or bing_seo_cannibalization. No mention of prerequisites or situations to avoid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.