get_external_links_historyTrack how many external links point to a site over time. Retrieve historical link counts for a Yandex Webmaster user and host to analyze backlink trends.
Get history of external links count over time.
| 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. 'Get' implies a safe read, and 'count over time' implies a time series, but it says nothing about the granularity of history, the time window returned, rate limits, or whether data is scoped to a user/host pair.
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. It is efficient, though arguably terse enough that it sacrifices some useful context for brevity.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be explained, and both required params are documented. However, for a history tool the description omits period granularity and default time range, leaving a real gap in how an agent would frame the call.
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% with both parameters (host_id with format example, user_id) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?
The description names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('external links count'), and scope ('history ... over time'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling get_external_links (current snapshot). It never names that sibling explicitly, so differentiation relies on inference.
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?
'over time' implies this is the temporal-series variant versus the point-in-time get_external_links, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.