Skip to main content
Glama
zizzfizzix

Bing Webmaster Tools MCP Server

by zizzfizzix

get_content_submission_quota

Check your Bing Webmaster Tools content submission quota and current usage to manage URL indexing limits effectively.

Instructions

Get information about content submission quota and usage.

Args: site_url: The URL of the site

Returns: ContentSubmissionQuota: Current quota information

Raises: BingWebmasterError: If quota information cannot be retrieved

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
selfYes
site_urlYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
__typeYes
DailyQuotaYes
MonthlyQuotaYes

Implementation Reference

  • Specific registration of the 'get_content_submission_quota' MCP tool by invoking wrap_service_method, which internally decorates an async wrapper function with @mcp.tool().
    get_content_submission_quota = wrap_service_method(  # noqa: F841
        mcp, service, "submission", "get_content_submission_quota"
  • The wrap_service_method function creates and returns the actual async handler for the tool, decorated with @mcp.tool(). It preserves the original method's signature and docstring, and executes the underlying service method (submission.get_content_submission_quota). This is the core handler logic for the tool.
    def wrap_service_method(
        mcp: FastMCP, service: BingWebmasterService, service_attr: str, method_name: str
    ) -> Callable[..., Any]:
        """Helper function to wrap a service method with mcp.tool() while preserving its signature and docstring.
    
        Args:
            mcp: The MCP server instance
            service: The BingWebmasterService instance
            service_attr: The service attribute name (e.g., 'sites', 'submission')
            method_name: The method name to wrap
    
        Returns:
            The wrapped method as an MCP tool
        """
        # Get the service class from our mapping
        service_class = SERVICE_CLASSES[service_attr]
        # Get the original method
        original_method = getattr(service_class, method_name)
        # Get the signature
        sig = inspect.signature(original_method)
        # Remove 'self' parameter from signature
        parameters = list(sig.parameters.values())[1:]  # Skip 'self'
    
        # Create new signature without 'self'
        new_sig = sig.replace(parameters=parameters)
    
        # Create wrapper function with same signature
        @mcp.tool()
        @wraps(original_method)
        async def wrapper(*args: Any, **kwargs: Any) -> Any:
            # Filter out any 'self' arguments that might be passed by the MCP client
            kwargs = {k: v for k, v in kwargs.items() if k != "self"}
    
            async with service as s:
                service_obj = getattr(s, service_attr)
                # Get the method from the instance
                method = getattr(service_obj, method_name)
                # Call the method directly - it's already bound to the instance
                return await method(*args, **kwargs)
    
        # Copy signature and docstring
        wrapper.__signature__ = new_sig  # type: ignore
        wrapper.__doc__ = original_method.__doc__
  • Calls add_bing_webmaster_tools which triggers the creation and registration of all tools, including get_content_submission_quota.
    add_bing_webmaster_tools(mcp, bing_service)
  • In the BingWebmasterService __aenter__, attaches the external SubmissionService as self.submission, which provides the get_content_submission_quota method called by the tool handler.
    self.submission = submission.SubmissionService(self.client)
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that it 'Raises: BingWebmasterError: If quota information cannot be retrieved', which adds some error-handling context. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or what the 'ContentSubmissionQuota' return entails beyond the type name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and uses bullet-like formatting. It's concise at 4 sentences, with no redundant information. However, the inclusion of 'self' in the schema without explanation in the description slightly reduces efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and error handling, but lacks usage guidelines, full parameter semantics, and behavioral details. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but other gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description lists 'site_url: The URL of the site' and implies a 'self' parameter via the schema, but it doesn't explain what 'self' means or its purpose. This leaves two required parameters with minimal semantic clarification, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get information about content submission quota and usage.' It specifies the verb ('Get information') and resource ('content submission quota and usage'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_url_submission_quota', which might cause confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with similar tools like 'get_url_submission_quota' or 'submit_content'. This leaves the agent without direction on appropriate use cases.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/zizzfizzix/mcp-server-bwt'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server