Retrieve up to 31 days of indexing history for a specified host and date range. Use it to diagnose indexing issues and track how Yandex crawled your site.
Read at most 31 days of indexing history.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_to | Yes | ||
| host_id | Yes | ||
| date_from | 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint beyond the annotations: the 31-day range cap. It does not, however, explain return shape, pagination, or the consequence of exceeding the cap.
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 no filler; the scope constraint is stated immediately. It is efficient, though minimal to the point of under-specification.
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 explained. However, for a 3-required-parameter read tool with 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin on parameter meaning and usage context to be fully self-sufficient.
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%, so the schema documents nothing about host_id, date_from, or date_to. The description only hints at the range constraint (31 days) but gives no format or meaning for any of the three required parameters, leaving a significant gap.
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 (indexing history) with a scope constraint (at most 31 days). It is reasonably distinguishable from sibling webmaster_list_indexing_samples, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from that or other history tools.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g., when to prefer this over webmaster_list_indexing_samples or webmaster_get_search_urls_history). Usage is only loosely implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.