Skip to main content
Glama
zizzfizzix

Bing Webmaster Tools MCP Server

by zizzfizzix

remove_page_preview_block

Remove page preview blocks from URLs in Bing Webmaster Tools to control how content appears in search results.

Instructions

Remove a page preview block.

Args: site_url: The URL of the site url: The URL to remove the page preview block from

Raises: BingWebmasterError: If preview block cannot be removed

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
selfYes
site_urlYes
urlYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • Registers the MCP tool 'remove_page_preview_block' by creating a wrapper around the ContentBlockingService.remove_page_preview_block method using wrap_service_method, which applies @mcp.tool() decorator.
    remove_page_preview_block = wrap_service_method(  # noqa: F841
        mcp, service, "blocking", "remove_page_preview_block"
  • Defines the wrap_service_method helper, which generates the actual handler function for the tool (anonymous async wrapper decorated with @mcp.tool()) that delegates 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
  • In BingWebmasterService.__aenter__, instantiates the blocking service (ContentBlockingService) that provides the remove_page_preview_block method.
    self.blocking = content_blocking.ContentBlockingService(self.client)
  • Maps the 'blocking' service attribute to the ContentBlockingService class used by wrap_service_method to inspect the method signature.
    "blocking": content_blocking.ContentBlockingService,
  • Calls add_bing_webmaster_tools which includes the registration of remove_page_preview_block among other tools.
    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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions an error case ('BingWebmasterError: If preview block cannot be removed'), which adds some context about failure modes. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a destructive/mutative operation (implied but not stated), permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens after removal (e.g., effects on site indexing).

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is brief and front-loaded with the main action, but the structure includes an 'Args' and 'Raises' section that adds length without sufficient detail. The 'Raises' section is useful but could be integrated more seamlessly. Overall, it's not wasteful but could be more cohesive.

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 complexity (a mutative operation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It has an output schema (not provided here), which may cover return values, but fails to address key aspects like parameter details, usage context, and behavioral traits. It's minimally adequate but leaves the agent with unanswered questions.

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 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description lists 'site_url' and 'url' in the Args section, adding basic meaning, but omits 'self' entirely. It doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., format, examples, or why 'self' is required), leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 ('Remove') and target resource ('a page preview block'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_page_preview_block' and 'get_active_page_preview_blocks' by focusing on removal. However, it doesn't specify what a 'page preview block' is or its functional context, leaving some ambiguity.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing preview block), exclusions, or related tools like 'remove_deep_link_block' or 'remove_blocked_url'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling list alone.

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