get_recrawl_quotaRetrieve a Yandex host's daily recrawl quota to determine how many URLs can be submitted for reindexing per day.
Get daily recrawl quota (how many URLs can be submitted per day).
| 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 burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'per day' hints at a reset cadence, but it says nothing about the reset timezone, whether the quota is per host or per user, or whether it's shared across the account.
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 a parenthetical that genuinely adds clarity to the resource name. No wasted words.
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 values need not be explained, and both required parameters are documented in the schema. The description is nearly complete, though a note on quota reset timing or scope would round it out.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (host_id, user_id) are fully documented in the schema with format examples. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters, 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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (daily recrawl quota), and the parenthetical clarifies exactly what the resource means (URLs submittable per day). This clearly separates it from siblings like request_recrawl or get_recrawl_tasks, which act on tasks rather than the quota.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives appear. The context of a 'quota' implies the agent should check it before calling request_recrawl, but that inference is left to the reader rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.