Read a paginated list of indexing samples for a Yandex Webmaster host, including continuation metadata to fetch the next page.
Read one page of indexing samples with continuation metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| host_id | 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 this a safe, idempotent, open-world read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that — that results are paged and carry continuation metadata — but says nothing about sample volume, freshness, or ordering.
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 well-formed sentence with the pagination behavior front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves information the agent needs elsewhere.
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, and the paging model is hinted at. However, with 0% schema coverage on three parameters and no guidance on host_id or when to prefer this over sibling history tools, the definition is only minimally 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 description must carry the param burden. 'One page' and 'continuation metadata' only loosely imply limit/offset paging; the meaning of host_id is never explained, and no bounds or units for limit/offset are given.
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 samples') plus a scoping detail ('one page'). It is clear what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from the many sibling list/get tools such as webmaster_get_indexing_history, so an agent must guess which of these returns samples.
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 statement of when to use this tool rather than webmaster_get_indexing_history or other webmaster_list_* siblings, nor any prerequisites. The only implicit guidance is pagination via 'one page' and 'continuation metadata', which is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.