Skip to main content
Glama
zizzfizzix

Bing Webmaster Tools MCP Server

by zizzfizzix

submit_content

Submit content to Bing for indexing by providing site URL, target URL, HTTP message, structured data, and device targeting. Ensure proper content submission and indexing.

Instructions

Submit content for a specific URL.

Args: site_url: Site url E.g.: http://example.com url: Url to submit E.g.: http://example.com/url1.html http_message: HTTP message (base64 encoded) structured_data: Structured Data (base64 encoded) dynamic_serving: Device targeting (0-5). {none = 0, PC-laptop = 1, mobile = 2, AMP = 3, tablet = 4, non-visual browser = 5}

Raises: BingWebmasterError: If content cannot be submitted

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
selfYes
site_urlYes
urlYes
http_messageYes
structured_dataYes
dynamic_servingYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of the 'submit_content' tool via wrap_service_method, binding to submission.SubmissionService.submit_content
    submit_content = wrap_service_method(mcp, service, "submission", "submit_content")  # noqa: F841
  • The wrap_service_method helper function that dynamically creates an MCP tool wrapper for any service method. It uses @mcp.tool() decorator, preserves the method signature (minus 'self'), and calls the underlying service method via async context manager.
    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
  • Maps the 'submission' service attribute to the SubmissionService class used for submit_content
    "submission": submission.SubmissionService,
  • Instantiates SubmissionService as self.submission on the BingWebmasterService, which is the service object called at runtime when submit_content tool executes
    self.submission = submission.SubmissionService(self.client)
  • Entry point where add_bing_webmaster_tools is called to register all tools including submit_content on the MCP server
    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 must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions an error case (BingWebmasterError) but does not describe side effects, whether the operation is destructive, rate limits, or what happens to existing content. The parameter descriptions are mechanical and lack behavioral context.

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 a single paragraph with a clear first sentence and an Args list. It is efficient with no redundant text, though the Args section could be integrated with the schema for brevity.

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 complexity (6 required parameters, no schema descriptions, output schema exists), the description covers parameter formats and error handling but lacks context about submission consequences, quota usage, or how it relates to other submission tools. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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. It provides examples and encoding details for most parameters (e.g., base64 for http_message, device targeting values for dynamic_serving). However, the required 'self' parameter is entirely omitted from the description, creating a gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Submit content for a specific URL,' specifying the action and resource. The parameter list (http_message, structured_data, dynamic_serving) distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_url and submit_url_batch, which likely handle URL-only submissions.

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. It does not mention context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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