Skip to main content
Glama
zizzfizzix

Bing Webmaster Tools MCP Server

by zizzfizzix

get_url_submission_quota

Check URL submission limits and usage for Bing Webmaster Tools to manage indexing capacity and avoid quota exhaustion.

Instructions

Get information about URL submission quota and usage.

Args: site_url: The URL of the site

Returns: UrlSubmissionQuota: 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

  • Registers the MCP tool 'get_url_submission_quota' by invoking wrap_service_method, which creates and decorates a handler wrapper with @mcp.tool().
    get_url_submission_quota = wrap_service_method(  # noqa: F841
        mcp, service, "submission", "get_url_submission_quota"
    )
  • Defines the helper function `wrap_service_method` that generates the handler for each tool, including signature preservation, @mcp.tool() decoration, and delegation to the underlying service method.
    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__
    
        return wrapper
  • Initializes and attaches the `submission` service instance (containing `get_url_submission_quota`) to `BingWebmasterService`.
    self.submission = submission.SubmissionService(self.client)
  • Invokes `add_bing_webmaster_tools` to register all Bing Webmaster MCP tools, including 'get_url_submission_quota'.
    add_bing_webmaster_tools(mcp, bing_service)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool can raise a 'BingWebmasterError' if quota information cannot be retrieved, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe authentication requirements, rate limits, whether this is a read-only operation, or what happens with invalid inputs beyond the error case.

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 appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by structured sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. Each section earns its place by providing essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has an output schema (UrlSubmissionQuota) and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and error information but lacks important context. It doesn't explain what quota information includes (limits, usage, reset periods) or how this tool fits into the broader URL submission workflow with sibling tools.

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 documentation. The description only mentions 'site_url: The URL of the site' but completely omits the 'self' parameter. This leaves one of two required parameters undocumented, failing to compensate for the poor 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 as 'Get information about URL submission quota and usage' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_content_submission_quota' by specifying URL submission rather than content submission, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this retrieves quota information, there's no mention of prerequisites, when this information is needed, or how it relates to other quota-related tools like 'get_content_submission_quota' or submission tools like 'submit_url'.

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