Update crawl rate and boost settings for a site to control how Bing crawls it.
Save new crawl settings for a specific site.
Args: site_url: The URL of the site crawl_settings: The new crawl settings to apply
Raises: BingWebmasterError: If settings cannot be saved
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site_url | Yes | ||
| crawl_settings | 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",
- "crawl_settings"
-]New value: +[
+ "site_url",
+ "crawl_settings"
+]v1.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "title": "save_crawl_settingsOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only says settings are saved and that a BingWebmasterError may be raised; it does not state whether existing settings are overwritten, whether the site must already exist, or any authorization prerequisites.
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 well-structured as a docstring with Args and Raises sections, with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. It loses a point only because the Args lines add little beyond the parameter names.
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 mutation tool with a nested parameter object and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, an explanation of the crawl_settings structure, and behavioral caveats; the output schema does not compensate for these selection and invocation gaps.
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 must compensate, but it only restates the parameter names ('The URL of the site', 'The new crawl settings to apply'). It fails to explain the required CrawlSettings shape, such as the 24-element CrawlRate integer array or the boolean flags.
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?
States precisely that it saves crawl settings for a specific site, with a clear verb (save) and resource (crawl settings). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling get_crawl_settings as the write counterpart, and no other sibling shares the 'save' verb.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_crawl_settings, nor any preconditions such as site verification. An agent must infer its role purely from the name, since the description only restates the purpose and arguments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.