Fetch the Yandex Wordstat regions tree to identify search region IDs and hierarchy. Use it to target or filter keyword data by geographic location.
Wordstat: getRegionsTree (regions dictionary).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing about read-only behavior, caching, authentication, or the shape of the region tree returned.
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?
Brief, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient front-loading. Nothing about the single sentence earns its place beyond the name.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and an opaque nested params object, the definition gives an agent nothing to call this tool correctly. The parenthetical 'regions dictionary' is insufficient compensation.
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% for a nested 'params' object with no documented properties, and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever. The agent has no way to know what to pass.
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 largely restates the tool name ('getRegionsTree'), adding only the parenthetical 'regions dictionary'. It implies a read of a regional hierarchy, but gives no indication of scope, depth, or format of the tree.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus the sibling wordstat.regions or the other wordstat tools. The agent must guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.