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. It discloses the quota limitation behavior and error condition (BingWebmasterError), which are valuable. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether submission is synchronous/asynchronous, or what happens on success.

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 efficiently structured with purpose statement, usage guidance, and parameter/error sections. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the quota guidance closer to the beginning.

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 no annotations, 3 required parameters (one undocumented), and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, quota constraint, and error handling but lacks details about the 'self' parameter, authentication, and operational behavior.

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. It documents 'site_url' and 'url' parameters with brief explanations, but completely omits the 'self' parameter which is required. The parameter explanations are minimal and don't clarify format requirements or relationships between parameters.

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') and resource ('a single URL for indexing'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling 'submit_url_batch' by specifying 'single URL' but doesn't explicitly contrast with other submission tools like 'submit_content' or 'submit_feed'.

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 provides explicit guidance to call 'get_url_submission_quota' first to determine capacity limits, which is crucial context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or alternatives like 'submit_url_batch' for multiple URLs.

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