Read the change history of a monitored URL in Yandex Webmaster to track updates; the URL must belong to the exact host.
Read change history of one monitored URL; the URL must belong to the exact host.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| host_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds the host-match constraint, but says nothing about return shape or how limit/offset interact (i.e., pagination behavior), which is the useful extra context an agent would need.
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 compact sentence with the key constraint front-loaded and no wasted words. Terseness borders on under-specification, but structurally it is clean.
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 no prose. However, with four undocumented parameters, no annotation gap coverage and undocumented pagination, the description leaves meaningful gaps for an agent trying to page through history correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the whole burden for four parameters. It clarifies the url constraint (must belong to the exact host) but leaves host_id vs url relationship and the limit/offset pagination parameters completely unexplained.
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 (change history of one monitored URL), which is enough to tell it apart from webmaster_list_important_urls at a glance. It does not name which sibling to use for the list view, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Provides one precondition (the URL must belong to the exact host), which is implied guidance about when the call is valid. There is no explicit when-to-use versus webmaster_list_important_urls or the other *history tools, and no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.