get_diagnosticsRetrieve Yandex Webmaster site diagnostics to identify FATAL, CRITICAL, and other problems plus recommendations for a specified user host.
Get site diagnostics — problems and recommendations (FATAL, CRITICAL, etc.).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host_id | Yes | Host ID (format: https:example.com:443) | |
| user_id | Yes | Yandex Webmaster user ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via "Get" and hints at the result taxonomy (FATAL, CRITICAL), but says nothing about required permissions, whether the host must be verified, throttling, or whether results are paginated.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its content domain are established immediately.
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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and both parameters are fully documented. However, for a tool that depends on a verified host and user context, the absence of any prerequisite or scoping note leaves a modest gap.
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 100%: both host_id (with format example) and user_id are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get site diagnostics") and names the content domain — problems and recommendations with severity levels — which helps distinguish it from the many history/sample siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from neighbors like get_summary or get_host_info, so it stops short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. host verification), and no mention of alternatives among the ~35 sibling tools. The agent must infer that this is the entry point for surfacing site health issues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.