Yandex Webmaster MCP

Submit the Yandex sign-in code

submit_code

Complete Yandex login by entering the code you receive after approving access.

Instructions

Complete a copy-paste sign-in started by login: pass the code Yandex showed you after you approved access.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "submit_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	The code shown on the Yandex page after you approved access.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context about the copy-paste flow and that the code comes after approval, but does not disclose side effects such as code invalidation, session state changes, or potential errors. With minimal annotations, this is adequate but not deeply transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes necessary context. There is zero fluff; every word adds value.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple one-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the full flow: prerequisite (login), the data to pass (code), and the expected action (complete sign-in). The annotations and schema fill the remaining gaps, making it sufficiently complete.

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 input schema already fully documents the only parameter 'code' with a clear description. The tool description restates the same meaning ('the code Yandex showed you') without adding new syntax or behavior details. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb 'Complete' with a clear resource ('copy-paste sign-in') and states the exact action: pass the code. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'login' tool by referencing it as the starting point, making the tool's role unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states this completes a sign-in 'started by login', giving clear contextual guidance for when this tool is appropriate. It doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternative tools, but the reference to login implies the intended sequence, which is adequate but not fully explicit.

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

Deploy Server