Retrieve sitemap details or registration status for a submitted sitemap in Yandex Webmaster using host and sitemap IDs. Check whether a sitemap is detected or user-added.
Read detected sitemap details or registration of a submitted sitemap.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host_id | Yes | ||
| sitemap_id | Yes | ||
| user_added | No |
| 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?
The verb 'read' implies a non-mutating operation, but there are no annotations and no further detail about side effects, permissions, or error behavior. The description is minimal and does not fully disclose what happens when the sitemap is not found.
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 very short and free of unnecessary wording. It efficiently states the core action and object.
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?
While an output schema exists, the description omits important contextual details such as parameter semantics, how user_added affects the lookup, and when to choose this tool over related sitemap tools. This makes the tool underspecified for reliable autonomous selection.
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?
The schema exposes host_id, sitemap_id, and user_added, but the description does not explain any of them. In particular, the meaning of user_added and its relationship to 'detected' vs 'submitted' is left entirely to the agent to infer.
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 identifies a read operation for a single sitemap's details or registration, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from list-oriented sibling tools like webmaster_list_sitemaps, though 'detected' vs 'submitted' could be clearer.
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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus sibling sitemap tools. It does not mention that this tool is for a single sitemap lookup or that list operations should be used for enumeration, leaving usage context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.