Bing Webmaster Tools MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that it 'Raises: BingWebmasterError: If deep link cannot be updated' which provides some error behavior, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read/write operation, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens when weight is updated. The '(Deprecated)' warning is useful context but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral details.

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 well-structured with clear sections: a brief purpose statement, an 'Args:' section listing parameters, and a 'Raises:' section for errors. Each sentence earns its place, though the '(Deprecated)' warning could be more integrated. The structure helps with readability and parsing.

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 has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to explain returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well and includes error information, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., mutation effects, permissions) and usage guidance. The '(Deprecated)' tag adds some context but doesn't fully address gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so effectively by listing all 5 parameters with brief explanations. It clarifies what 'site_url', 'algo_url', 'deep_link', and 'weight' represent, though 'self' is not explained. The description adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, especially noting that 'weight' is 'new weight for the deep link' and that parameters are for updating.

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 states 'Update deep link weight' which provides a clear verb ('update') and resource ('deep link weight'), but it's somewhat vague about what a 'deep link' is in this context. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'add_deep_link_block' or 'get_deep_link', though the 'update' action is different. The '(Deprecated)' warning is helpful but doesn't clarify the purpose further.

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, when this operation is appropriate, or what other tools might be better suited for related tasks. The '(Deprecated)' tag implies it should be avoided, but doesn't specify what to use instead.

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