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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that verification might fail (via the 'Raises' section), which adds some context, but it doesn't describe what 'verification' entails (e.g., methods like DNS or HTML file upload), permissions required, side effects, or rate limits. For a mutation-like tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with clear sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the inclusion of 'self' in the Args without explanation slightly reduces efficiency, as it adds an unexplained element.

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 complexity (a verification tool with potential side effects), no annotations, and an output schema that only specifies a boolean return, the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and error handling but lacks details on verification methods, prerequisites, and parameter meanings. The output schema handles return values, but behavioral gaps remain.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value: it documents 'site_url' as 'The URL of the site to verify', but it doesn't explain the 'self' parameter at all. With two parameters and low coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately.

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: 'Attempt to verify ownership of a site.' It specifies the verb ('verify') and resource ('ownership of a site'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_site' or 'get_sites', which is why it doesn't achieve 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the site must already be added), exclusions, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'add_site' or 'get_sites'. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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