Retrieve domain ranking positions with changes since the last check, identifying improved and declined queries from historical data without new API calls.
Текущие позиции домена с дельтой к прошлому замеру и списком выросших и просевших запросов. Данные из истории, новых запросов к API не делает.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | ||
| region | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a simple getter by explicitly stating that no new API requests are made and data comes from history, which is valuable for avoiding unintended side effects. It doesn't mention errors, permissions, or response format, but the core non-obvious behavior is disclosed.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence communicates the core output, and the second delivers the crucial behavior about making no new API requests. 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?
The description is adequate for a simple read-style endpoint, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around parameter meaning, required fields, and return structure. An agent can guess the intent but not fully know how to construct the call correctly, especially for 'region'.
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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'domain' is inferable from context, but 'region' remains ambiguous as an integer (ID? country code? search region?). The tool relies entirely on parameter names, which is insufficient for an agent to know what values to provide.
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?
Description states exactly what the tool returns: current domain positions, delta to the previous measurement, and lists of grown/fallen queries. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_position_history, which would return historical series, and run_tracking, which triggers new tracking.
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 phrase 'Данные из истории, новых запросов к API не делает' explicitly signals that this is for reading existing historical data without triggering new API work. It doesn't name specific alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the context and sibling names imply the distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.