Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
yandex-marketing-mcp

yandex-marketing-mcp

by skiddgoddamn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

yd_webmaster_recrawl_submit

Request Yandex Webmaster to recrawl a specific URL and receive a task ID for tracking.

Instructions

Yandex Webmaster: submit a URL for recrawl (returns task_id).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "host_id": "<host_id>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "yd_webmaster_recrawl_submit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
host_idYesHost ID (from yd_webmaster_hosts_get)
urlYesURL to recrawl

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the return of a task_id, but lacks information on whether the operation is synchronous, destructive, rate-limited, or requires specific permissions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without adding length.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the existence of sibling recrawl tools, the description is insufficient to help an agent choose the correct tool. No output schema is provided, but the return value is briefly noted. Overall, adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (host_id and url). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action: 'submit a URL for recrawl' and mentions the return value 'task_id'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling recrawl tools like yd_webmaster_recrawl_task or yd_webmaster_recrawl_list.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative recrawl tools. It does not mention prerequisites, ordering, or conditions for use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools