Prepare a sitemap registration for a Yandex Webmaster host ID and sitemap URL, creating a pending request that requires human approval before submission.
Prepare one sitemap registration for expiring human approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description usefully adds that this stages an action requiring human approval rather than mutating state immediately — a real behavioral fact. But it does not explain what 'expiring' means (time-limited approval?), what is staged, or what happens if the approval lapses.
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 terse sentence is structurally efficient, but the odd phrase 'expiring human approval' is cryptic rather than economical. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity rather than from front-loading essential information.
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 for a prepare-stage tool in a prepare/apply/reconcile workflow, the description should at least name the follow-up action and the approval lifecycle. Neither is present, leaving the workflow semantics incomplete.
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% for both required parameters, so the description bears the full burden and fails it. It never clarifies whether 'url' is the sitemap URL and 'host_id' the verified host, nor their formats. Beyond the generic mention of 'sitemap registration', no parameter meaning is added.
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 'prepare' and resource 'sitemap registration' are specific, and the description correctly signals a staged/approval step rather than direct execution. However, the phrase 'expiring human approval' is ambiguous and it never distinguishes this from the sibling webmaster_apply_sitemap, which is the natural counterpart. An agent would likely need to infer the prepare/apply pairing from the naming convention alone.
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 on when to use this versus webmaster_apply_sitemap, webmaster_reconcile_action, or webmaster_manage_prepare. The existence of a sibling cluster (prepare/apply/reconcile) makes this omission costly. Only the implicit 'prepare = before apply' convention hints at usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.