Retrieve complete branch data for a Yandex Business company by its ID, returning all fields as in the local YAML branch files. Use this to inspect or verify a single branch's details.
Полные данные одного филиала (как в data/branches/.yaml).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace | No | ||
| company_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The parenthetical 'как в data/branches/<company-id>.yaml' usefully discloses that the output matches the YAML file content, but it does not mention error behavior, existence checks, authentication, or any side effects.
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 description is a short, single phrase with no unnecessary words. The core scope ('one branch') and the data reference are front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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 simple 2-parameter read tool with an output schema, the core operation is sufficiently clear, and the YAML reference helps define the return content. However, the workspace parameter is left unexplained, which could matter in multi-workspace or multi-tenant contexts.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly ties company_id to the file path '<company-id>.yaml', but it does not explain the workspace parameter at all. This leaves the meaning of half the parameters effectively undocumented.
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 phrase 'Полные данные одного филиала' clearly indicates a single-branch data retrieval operationable recognizable from the tool name. It differentiates from ybiz_list_branches by the singular scope ('одного филиала'), but lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'return', so it is clear but not a fully specified action statement.
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?
The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ybiz_list_branches or ybiz_update_branch. The singular 'одного филиала' weakly implies a single-branch use case, but there is no explicit guidance on selection, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.