verify_hostInitiate Yandex Webmaster host verification via DNS, HTML file, or meta tag by providing user ID and host ID.
Start site verification process.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host_id | Yes | Host ID (format: https:example.com:443) | |
| user_id | Yes | Yandex Webmaster user ID | |
| verification_type | Yes | Verification method: DNS, HTML_FILE, or META_TAG |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action. It omits permissions required, side effects, idempotency, and what 'starting' verification actually does (e.g., sends requests, creates a task).
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?
The single sentence is too terse and does not front-load useful information; it is under-specified rather than concise. The sentence does not earn its place because it repeats the name without adding value.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and a rich output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain when to use it, what it requires, or how it fits with the verification-status sibling, leaving significant gaps.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter semantics, leaving the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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 'Start site verification process' essentially restates the tool name (verify_host) without adding specific detail about what verification entails. It gives a verb and a resource, but the purpose remains vague and does not distinguish it from siblings like 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or the existence of a status-checking sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.