Yandex Webmaster MCP

ID пользователя

get_user_id

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the OAuth token owner's user_id to diagnose authentication setup or manually set YANDEX_USER_ID for raw API requests.

Instructions

Возвращает идентификатор пользователя (user_id) — владельца OAuth-токена: {"user_id": число}. Сервер подставляет user_id во все остальные вызовы автоматически, так что обычно этот инструмент нужен только для диагностики (например, чтобы задать YANDEX_USER_ID) или для путей raw_request.

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_user_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the returned ID belongs to the OAuth token owner and the server automatically injects it into other calls, explaining the tool's practical role. No contradictions with annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the core function. It then explains the auto-substitution behavior and specific use cases without any redundant or ambiguous content.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description is complete: it provides the return format, explains the OAuth token ownership, clarifies when to use it, and mentions related raw_request paths. No important context is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it sufficiently explains the return value and purpose, which is all that is needed for a parameterless tool.

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 clearly states the tool returns the user_id (owner of the OAuth token) with an example response format. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by explicitly noting that the server auto-substitutes user_id, so this tool is usually unnecessary for normal operations.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for diagnostics (e.g., setting YANDEX_USER_ID) or raw_request paths. It also states when not to use it, because the server automatically injects user_id into other calls, making this a rarely needed diagnostic tool.

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