Yandex Webmaster MCP

Диагностика сайта

get_site_diagnostics

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get current site diagnostics from Yandex Webmaster, listing problems with severity and state to reveal what needs attention.

Instructions

Возвращает диагностику сайта — объект problems, где ключ — тип проблемы, а значение — {severity: FATAL/CRITICAL/POSSIBLE_PROBLEM/RECOMMENDATION, state: PRESENT/ABSENT/UNDEFINED, last_state_update}. Показывает, что именно Вебмастер считает проблемой сайта прямо сейчас. Требует подтверждённых прав на сайт.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_site_diagnostics"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`host_id`	No	Идентификатор сайта host_id вида «https:example.com:443» (получите из list_sites). Можно не указывать, если задана переменная YANDEX_WEBMASTER_HOST_ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the response structure and the permission requirement, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and return type. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the output structure, the second clarifies the current-state semantics and permission requirement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It documents the return format, the meaning of 'right now', and the necessary permission, which covers all needed context without excess.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, as the only parameter host_id is fully explained in the schema including how to obtain it from list_sites. The tool description itself doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with the verb 'Возвращает' (returns) and clearly specifies the resource: site diagnostics. It details the problems object structure with severity and state, making it distinct from sibling tools like get_site_summary or list_sites.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides concrete usage context: it shows what Webmaster considers a problem at the current moment. It mentions the prerequisite of verified rights, but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.