Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bing Webmaster Tools MCP Server

Bing Webmaster Tools MCP Server

by zizzfizzix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

verify_site

Confirm site ownership by submitting its URL for verification, enabling Bing Webmaster Tools access and management.

Instructions

Attempt to verify ownership of a site.

Args: site_url: The URL of the site to verify

Returns: bool: True if verification was successful

Raises: BingWebmasterError: If verification fails

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "site_url": "<site_url>"
    },
    "name": "verify_site"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_urlYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / self
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "self",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "self",
-  "site_url"
-]New value: +[
+  "site_url"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "title": "Result",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "title": "verify_siteOutput",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return type (bool) and that it raises BingWebmasterError, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it has side effects, or whether it is idempotent. For a verification tool, it should clarify that it does not modify state, which is missing.

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 concise and well-structured with Args, Returns, and Raises sections. The opening sentence is clear and front-loaded. There is no fluff, and each line serves a purpose. A minor deduction for not including usage guidance, but overall it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema (bool return) and a single parameter, the description is minimal. It does not mention prerequisites, such as the site needing to be added first, nor does it explain what 'verification' entails in the broader site-management workflow. This leaves gaps for an agent to call it incorrectly.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an Args section with a brief explanation for site_url: 'The URL of the site to verify.' This adds a little context beyond the schema's 'Site Url' title, but does not specify format, validation, or examples. It meets a baseline but does not fully enrich the parameter meaning.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Attempt to verify ownership of a site.' This specifies a verb (verify), a resource (ownership of a site), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_site or get_sites. The 'Attempt' nuance adds appropriate uncertainty without clouding the core function.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that verification likely follows adding a site, nor does it contrast with any sibling. The description gives no context about the typical workflow or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools