Retrieve up to 31 days of Yandex Webmaster query performance data, including impressions, clicks, and average positions for all or selected queries.
Read at most 31 days of aggregate or selected-query indicators.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_to | Yes | ||
| host_id | Yes | ||
| query_id | No | ||
| date_from | Yes | ||
| query_indicator | No | ||
| device_type_indicator | No | ALL |
| 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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral constraint, the 31-day window, but says nothing about what distinguishes aggregate from selected-query mode or about rate/limit behavior beyond the window.
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 wasted words, but it is terse to the point of under-specification for a 6-parameter tool; concision here comes at the cost of necessary detail rather than from tight editing.
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 described, but with 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no usage guidance, and no sibling differentiation, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly on the first try.
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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It only indirectly implies the query_id role ('selected-query' vs 'aggregate'), and says nothing about host_id, date_from/date_to format, query_indicator, or device_type_indicator.
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 verb 'Read' and the notion of query history are present, and the 'aggregate or selected-query' phrase hints at the two modes of operation. However, 'indicators' is vague and the description does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like webmaster_list_popular_queries or webmaster_query_analytics, so an agent cannot route confidently.
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 only guidance is the 31-day cap. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the sibling query tools, no prerequisites (e.g. host ownership/verification), and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.