Bing Webmaster Tools MCP Server

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 that the tool can raise an error on failure, which is useful, but lacks critical details like whether this is a destructive/mutative operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or what 'submitting' entails (e.g., asynchronous processing).

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, but includes redundant sections like 'Args:' and 'Raises:' that add little value beyond what's implied. It could be more efficiently structured without sacrificing clarity.

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 tool with 3 parameters (including a complex nested object), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter details, or relationship to other tools like 'get_site_moves', despite having an output schema that might cover return values.

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 provides only basic param names ('site_url', 'settings') without explaining their meaning, format, or relationships. The 'settings' parameter is complex (with nested SiteMoveSettings), but the description offers no guidance on its structure or required fields like 'MoveScope' or 'TargetUrl'.

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 clearly states the action ('Submit a site move request') and resource ('site'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_site_moves' or explain what a 'site move' entails in this specific context, preventing a perfect score.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or sibling tools like 'get_site_moves' for checking existing moves, leaving the agent without usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.