Skip to main content
Glama
zizzfizzix

Bing Webmaster Tools MCP Server

by zizzfizzix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_link_counts

Get link counts for a site by providing its URL and optional page number to view paginated results.

Instructions

Retrieve link counts for a specific site.

Args: site_url: The URL of the site page: The page number of results to retrieve

Returns: LinkCounts: Summary of link counts

Raises: BingWebmasterError: If link counts cannot be retrieved

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
site_urlYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
LinksYes
TotalPagesYes

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",
-  "site_url"
-]New value: +[
+  "site_url"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$defs": {
+    "LinkCount": {
+      "properties": {
+        "Count": {
+          "title": "Count",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "Url": {
+          "title": "Url",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "Count",
+        "Url"
+      ],
+      "title": "LinkCount",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "properties": {
+    "Links": {
+      "items": {
+        "$ref": "#/$defs/LinkCount"
+      },
+      "title": "Links",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "TotalPages": {
+      "title": "Totalpages",
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "Links",
+    "TotalPages"
+  ],
+  "title": "LinkCounts",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it 'Retrieve's data and raises a BingWebmasterError on failure, implying a read-only operation and an error condition. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description covers basic behavior but lacks depth, so a 3 is appropriate.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then clearly labeled Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the core action. There is no redundancy or unnecessary prose, making it highly efficient.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential aspects: the parameters, the return type, and the error case. However, it omits details such as pagination semantics (e.g., what page 0 means, page size) and does not mention any constraints on site_url format. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return structure, but the description still leaves some operational details unclear.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It provides clear explanations for both site_url ('The URL of the site') and page ('The page number of results to retrieve'). While not extremely detailed, it adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare types and constraints, warranting a 4.

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 action (retrieve) and the resource (link counts for a specific site), which is specific enough to understand the core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_url_links, but the wording is unambiguous. The verb and resource are distinct, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_url_links or get_children_url_info. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would select this tool. The only usage hint is the parameter description, which is not explicit enough for tool selection.

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