Retrieve indexing history for a host over a date range (up to 31 days) to track changes in Yandex indexation status and monitor site visibility.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add one meaningful constraint: at most 31 days of history. However, it does not explain date inclusivity, timezone handling, data granularity, rate limits, or any other behavioral context beyond being a read operation.
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 one compact sentence with no filler. The core behavior and the 31-day cap are front-loaded, so an agent can quickly grasp the purpose.
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?
With three required parameters, zero schema coverage, and no usage guidance, the description is too minimal for an agent to reliably construct a valid request. The output schema covers return shape, but input semantics and selection context are missing.
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%, and the description does not define host_id, date_from, or date_to meanings, formats, or relationships. The phrase 'at most 31 days' hints at date-range semantics but does not map to the actual parameters.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Read') and resource ('indexing history'), with the additional constraint of 'at most 31 days'. It distinguishes from sibling history tools like webmaster_get_query_history by naming a distinct resource, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as webmaster_get_query_history, webmaster_get_search_urls_history, or other read/history tools. The 31-day cap hints at a potential use case but does not provide selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.