Retrieve metadata for a specific Yandex Webmaster host by its host ID. Use it to inspect verification status, site details, and host configuration in yandex-mcp.
Read metadata for an exact Webmaster host identifier.
| 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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the 'exact identifier' semantics (no fuzzy/prefix matching); it says nothing about auth scope or what metadata fields are returned.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter detail noted elsewhere.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented, and annotations cover the read-only/idempotent profile. Still, for a retrieval tool the description never explains what 'metadata' comprises or where an exact host identifier comes from, leaving a real gap.
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% for the single required host_id parameter. The phrase 'exact Webmaster host identifier' hints at accepted identifier form but gives no format, source, or example, leaving the agent to guess what value to pass.
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 (Read) and resource (metadata for a Webmaster host), with 'exact ... identifier' implying a single-host lookup rather than a listing. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like webmaster_list_hosts or webmaster_get_user, but the singular/exact scoping is discernible.
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, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the per-host counterpart to webmaster_list_hosts purely from the name and the word 'exact'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.