Retrieve issues for a Yandex Webmaster host to inspect severity, presence state, and when each problem first appeared or changed.
Read problems with native severity, presence state and state-change time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific diagnostic fields returned (native severity, presence state, state-change time), which gives some behavioral context, but it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or other operational details.
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 single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the phrase 'native severity' is jargon that could benefit from a brief clarification.
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 tool is simple (one parameter), and both annotations and an output schema exist, so the safety profile and return format are covered. However, the description still lacks any usage context or parameter explanation, leaving an agent to infer when to call this tool versus the many other webmaster diagnostic siblings.
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?
There is one required parameter, host_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions host_id or explains what host the diagnostics apply to, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema-level documentation. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, which prevents a score of 1.
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 description identifies a specific read operation on 'problems' (diagnostics) and lists the diagnostic attributes: native severity, presence state, and state-change time. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling problem-related tools such as webmaster_get_feed_problems or webmaster_get_summary, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not state when an agent should choose this tool over alternatives like webmaster_get_summary, webmaster_get_feed_problems, or other diagnostics-oriented siblings. Usage must be inferred from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.