get_host_infoRetrieve detailed information about a specific site using Yandex Webmaster user and host IDs.
Get detailed information about a specific site.
| 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 behavioral burden. "Get" weakly implies a read operation, but nothing is said about authorization requirements, whether it can fail for unverified hosts, rate limits, or the nature/format of the returned detail.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is structurally clean, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than from tight editing.
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?
The presence of an output schema and 100% parameter schema coverage means return values and parameter formats need not be explained here. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves a real gap in distinguishing this tool from its many read-oriented siblings.
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% (host_id format and user_id are documented inline) and there are only 2 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters behave or interact.
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 gives a generic verb+resource ("Get detailed information about a specific site") but it essentially restates the title "Get Host Info" and swaps "site" for "host", which is inconsistent with the parameter naming (host_id). It does not distinguish this tool from siblings like get_summary, get_hosts, or get_verification_status.
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 tool versus alternatives. With siblings such as get_hosts (list) and get_summary (summarized data), the agent gets no signal about which to pick or what preconditions exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.