Skip to main content
Glama
zizzfizzix

Bing Webmaster Tools MCP Server

by zizzfizzix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_rank_and_traffic_stats

Retrieve ranking and traffic statistics for a site. Use offset and limit to paginate through complete data.

Instructions

Get ranking and traffic statistics for a site.

Args: site_url: The URL of the site

Returns: List[RankAndTrafficStats]: List of ranking and traffic statistics

Raises: BingWebmasterError: If statistics cannot be retrieved

Returns at most limit rows (default 50, max 500). When the result reports a next_offset, call again with offset=next_offset to get more rows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of rows to return.
offsetNoIndex of the first row.
site_urlYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 50,
+  "description": "Maximum number of rows to return.",
+  "maximum": 500,
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "title": "Limit",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "Index of the first row.",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "title": "Offset",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • 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: +{
+  "$defs": {
+    "RankAndTrafficStats": {
+      "properties": {
+        "Clicks": {
+          "title": "Clicks",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "Date": {
+          "format": "date-time",
+          "title": "Date",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "Impressions": {
+          "title": "Impressions",
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "__type": {
+          "title": "Type",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "__type",
+        "Clicks",
+        "Date",
+        "Impressions"
+      ],
+      "title": "RankAndTrafficStats",
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "items": {
+        "$ref": "#/$defs/RankAndTrafficStats"
+      },
+      "title": "Result",
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "title": "get_rank_and_traffic_statsOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 it returns a list, supports pagination with limit and offset, and raises an error. This covers key behaviors, but it does not mention whether it is a read-only operation or any side effects, though none are indicated. Still, it provides useful context beyond the schema.

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, starting with a clear one-sentence summary followed by parameter and return details. It front-loads the core action and includes only essential information. No fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (pagination, return list), the description covers the essential usage. It explains the pagination workflow clearly. However, it does not elaborate on the return object structure, but the output schema exists. It also lacks differentiation from siblings, but that is a usage guideline issue. Overall, it is adequate.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 67% (limit and offset are documented, site_url is not). The description adds minimal detail on site_url (just 'The URL of the site'), which adds little beyond the parameter name. For a tool where site_url is the key input, more context (e.g., format or examples) would be helpful.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get ranking and traffic statistics for a site.' It identifies the site as the subject and mentions the type of data. However, it does not differentiate from several similar sibling tools like get_query_traffic_stats, get_page_stats, or get_url_traffic_info, which could confuse an agent.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage by asking for a site URL and explaining pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the many related sibling tools (e.g., 'for site-level stats, use this; for page-level, use that'). There is no exclusionary guidance.

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