Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bing Webmaster Tools MCP Server

Bing Webmaster Tools MCP Server

by zizzfizzix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_keyword

Retrieve keyword impression data for a specific query, country, language, and date range to analyze search performance.

Instructions

Get keyword impressions for a selected period.

Args: query: The keyword query country: The country code language: The language code start_date: The start date of the period end_date: The end date of the period

Returns: Optional[Keyword]: Keyword impression data, or None if no data available

Raises: BingWebmasterError: If keyword data cannot be retrieved

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>",
      "country": "<country>",
      "language": "<language>",
      "start_date": "<start_date>",
      "end_date": "<end_date>"
    },
    "name": "get_keyword"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes
countryYes
end_dateYes
languageYes
start_dateYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / self
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "self",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "self",
-  "query",
-  "country",
-  "language",
-  "start_date",
-  "end_date"
-]New value: +[
+  "query",
+  "country",
+  "language",
+  "start_date",
+  "end_date"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$defs": {
+    "Keyword": {
+      "properties": {
+        "BroadImpressions": {
+          "title": "Broadimpressions",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "Impressions": {
+          "title": "Impressions",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "Query": {
+          "title": "Query",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "__type": {
+          "title": "Type",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "__type",
+        "BroadImpressions",
+        "Impressions",
+        "Query"
+      ],
+      "title": "Keyword",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "$ref": "#/$defs/Keyword"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "title": "get_keywordOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose return behavior ('Optional[Keyword]' and 'None if no data available') and the BingWebmasterTools exception, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether this operation has side effects, requires special permissions, or any peculiarities of the returned keyword impression data.

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 compact and front-loaded, with a one-sentence summary followed by clearly separated Args/Returns/Raises sections. It avoids redundancy and is easy to parse, though it could be more concise in the parameter descriptions.

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?

The description covers the inputs, return type, and failure behavior, which is adequate for a simple lookup tool. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over similar keyword/query tools, nor does it clarify any prerequisites or expected input formats beyond the schema, leaving some contextual ambiguity.

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?

The schema has no descriptions, so the Args section carries the burden. It explains each of the five parameters, but only superficially: 'The country code' and 'The language code' add some meaning, while 'query' and the date parameters are near-tautological and lack format or constraint details such as expected date formats or language code standards.

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 first sentence clearly states the operation ('Get keyword impressions') and the primary scope ('for a selected period'). It is clear enough on its own but does not distinguish itself from the many sibling tools like get_keyword_stats or get_related_keywords.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_keyword_stats, get_related_keywords, or get_query_stats. The description simply restates the function rather than explaining its specific use case.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools