Register a new site with Bing Webmaster Tools by providing its URL, enabling index submission and traffic analysis.
Add a new site to Bing Webmaster Tools.
Args: site_url: The URL of the site to add
Raises: BingWebmasterError: If the site cannot be added
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / selfRemoved value: -{
- "title": "self",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "self",
- "site_url"
-]New value: +[
+ "site_url"
+]v1.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "title": "add_siteOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that a BingWebmasterError is raised if the site cannot be added, but it does not describe side effects, duplicate behavior, verification requirements, authentication needs, or whether the site is immediately usable.
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 compact and front-loaded with the main action. The Args and Raises sections are clear, though the Args line is somewhat redundant with the schema. Overall, it is concise without wasted words.
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?
The tool is simple with one required parameter and an output schema, so the core usage is conveyed. However, important context is missing, such as whether verification is needed after adding a site and what happens if the site already exists. The error clause helps but does not fully compensate for the absent behavioral and usage details.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only repeats 'The URL of the site to add,' which adds little beyond the schema's 'Site Url' title. It lacks URL format guidance, examples, or constraints such as protocol requirements or trailing-slash normalization.
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 states a specific action and resource: 'Add a new site to Bing Webmaster Tools.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from remove_site and verify_site, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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 like verify_site or remove_site. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or exclusions, so the agent must infer usage solely from the verb 'Add.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.