Retrieve a page of monitored important URLs for a host, including indexing and search status. Use host_id with limit and offset to review site priorities.
Read one page of monitored important URLs with indexing and search status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 'one page' pagination cue, which the limit/offset schema already implies, and says nothing about ordering, page-size limits, or host requirements.
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 tight sentence with no filler, and the resource scope is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the coverage gaps elsewhere rather than being purely advantageous.
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-value explanation is not required. However, for a 3-parameter list tool with zero schema description coverage, the description omits usage context and parameter meaning, leaving it only minimally adequate.
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% (3 parameters, none described), so the description must carry the burden. It only hints at pagination via 'one page' and says nothing about host_id, limit, or offset semantics, leaving the required host_id undocumented.
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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and a clearly scoped resource ('monitored important URLs') plus the returned data ('indexing and search status'). This distinguishes it reasonably from generic list siblings like webmaster_list_search_urls, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus webmaster_list_search_urls, webmaster_list_indexing_samples, or webmaster_get_important_url_history. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and resource description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.