Remove a site from Bing Webmaster Tools by submitting its URL. Use this to delete a property you no longer manage.
Remove a site from Bing Webmaster Tools.
Args: site_url: The URL of the site to remove
Raises: BingWebmasterError: If the site cannot be removed
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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"
-]New value: +[
+ "site_url"
+]v1.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "title": "remove_siteOutput",
+ "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. It does disclose that a BingWebmasterError is raised if removal fails, which adds behavioral context. However, it does not mention whether removal is irreversible, whether site verification is required, or what associated data (e.g., roles, feeds, blocks) might be affected.
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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter and error details in clean sections. No superfluous text exists; every line adds needed information.
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?
For a one-parameter removal operation with an output schema present, the description covers the purpose, parameter, and error condition. It does not mention preconditions like site existence/verification or consequences of removal, but the operation is simple enough that an agent can call it correctly with the given information.
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 description's 'Args' section is essential. It clearly defines site_url as 'The URL of the site to remove,' giving the single parameter meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare 'Site Url' title. It lacks format or example values, but for a simple URL string this is sufficient.
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 a specific resource ('a site from Bing Webmaster Tools'), making the tool's core purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings like remove_site_role, remove_feed, and remove_blocked_url by referring to the site-level resource.
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 intended use is implied from 'Remove a site from Bing Webmaster Tools,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to use it. The sibling list suggests many removal/role tools, yet no differentiation is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.