Lists sitemap files manually added by a user, not those Yandex discovered. Use when you need to see which sitemaps were added by hand.
List user-added sitemaps. Use when the user asks which sitemap files were added by hand. Do not use it for sitemaps Yandex found on its own; call get-sitemaps. Do not use it to add a file; call add-sitemap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| host_id | Yes | Host ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds manual-vs-discovered semantics, which is useful context, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or how the limit shapes the result for what is potentially a large list.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the trigger, then the exclusions. Every sentence earns its place and none restates the tool name.
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 read-only list tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the routing information is essentially complete. The only real gap is that limit's meaning and default behavior are undocumented anywhere.
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 only 50%: host_id is documented merely as 'Host ID' and limit carries only min/max bounds with no explanation of what is being limited. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap on limit.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List user-added sitemaps') and immediately scopes it against the two nearest siblings, get-sitemaps and add-sitemap. An agent can distinguish this tool from every other get-* sibling by the 'user-added' qualifier alone.
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?
Gives an explicit positive trigger ('when the user asks which sitemap files were added by hand') plus two explicit exclusions that name the correct alternative tool for each case. Nothing about routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.