get_summaryRetrieve a Yandex Webmaster site summary with SQI, indexed pages, and problem counts using user_id and host_id. Use it to monitor site health.
Get site summary: SQI, indexed pages count, site problems count.
| 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 behavioral burden alone. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is a reasonable inference, but the description doesn't state auth requirements, whether the two IDs need to belong to the same user, or any rate limits. It is adequate but not rich.
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 that names the operation and lists exactly what it returns. No waste, no ambiguity, every word earns its place.
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, the description need not explain return values, and it appropriately enumerates the summary metrics it will produce. Annotations being absent means some behavioral context (read-only nature, prerequisites) is missing, but annotations are not required for this kind of safe read tool, and the description is otherwise complete for calling it.
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% and both parameters (host_id, user_id) are fully documented, including host_id format. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?
The description states a clear verb+resource ('Get site summary') and enumerates the three summary metrics returned (SQI, indexed pages count, site problems count). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_host_info or get_sqi_history by the aggregate nature of 'summary'. However, it doesn't explicitly say how it differs from those similarly-named metric tools, keeping it 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given many siblings that return overlapping metrics (get_host_info, get_sqi_history, get_diagnostics), no instruction is provided to help an agent choose this aggregate summary over those. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.