Remove a page preview block for a specified URL on your site to restore normal search result previews.
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
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| site_url | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / properties / selfRemoved value: -{
- "title": "self",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "self",
- "site_url",
- "url"
-]New value: +[
+ "site_url",
+ "url"
+]v1.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "title": "remove_page_preview_blockOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It acknowledges the destructive 'Remove' action and mentions a BingWebmasterError, but it does not disclose prerequisites such as site ownership, whether the block must already exist, or whether removal is reversible.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, with a one-sentence summary followed directly by the Args and Raises sections. There is no redundant or filler content; every line serves a clear purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives the operation, both required arguments, and an error condition, which is adequate for a simple two-parameter removal call. However, it omits usage context, permissions, and any connection to related preview-block tools, so an agent must infer operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the parameter descriptions in the tool description are the only source of meaning. They distinguish site_url as 'the URL of the site' and url as the page from which to remove the preview block, but they provide no format, examples, or URL conventions, which leaves some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and explicit resource ('page preview block'), so the core operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like remove_deep_link_block or add_page_preview_block, but the resource name and arguments make the intent clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when a page preview block should be removed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.