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 the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: batch limits (500 max, quota-dependent) and error conditions (raises BingWebmasterError). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, idempotency, or what 'indexing' entails operationally. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. The quota guidance and parameter/error sections are useful but could be more integrated. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'Args:' section repeats parameter names without adding much), but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (batch mutation with quotas), no annotations, and an output schema (which relieves the description from explaining returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, limits, and errors, but lacks details on parameter semantics, side effects, and operational context, leaving gaps for safe use.

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 lists and briefly describes the three parameters ('site_url', 'url_list'), but provides no details on format, constraints, or the purpose of 'self' (undocumented). The added value is minimal, failing to fully address the coverage gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Submit multiple URLs for indexing in a single request.' It specifies the action (submit), resource (URLs), and scope (multiple in batch). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'submit_url' (singular) or 'submit_content', which would be needed for 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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for batch submissions of up to 500 URLs, and it explicitly references the alternative 'get_url_submission_quota' to check quotas. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. 'submit_url' for single URLs) or other exclusions, preventing a perfect score.

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