Prepare an asynchronous Yandex search results request for later retrieval without a live call. Use to schedule or batch SERP queries before fetching responses.
Prepare an asynchronous Yandex SERP request without a live provider call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| region | No | 225 | |
| response_format | No | FORMAT_XML |
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that no live provider call is made, but it does not explain what 'prepare' actually does, whether it creates persistent state, whether it is idempotent, what side effects occur, or what permissions are required. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and the key qualifier 'without a live provider call' is included. It is efficient, though perhaps too sparse to support the other dimensions.
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?
Given the 0% parameter coverage, absence of annotations, and a clear sibling workflow around submit/status/get_result, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the relationship to yandex_serp_submit, what to do with the prepared request, or how the parameters should be populated. The existence of an output schema does not fill these gaps.
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%, and the description provides no explanation of the three parameters: query, region, or response_format. The defaults '225' and 'FORMAT_XML' are left unexplained, and the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Prepare', with a clear resource, 'an asynchronous Yandex SERP request', and adds the scoping qualifier 'without a live provider call'. This clearly distinguishes it from a live execution call, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools such as yandex_serp_submit or yandex_serp_get_result.
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 phrase 'without a live provider call' implies this is a staging or pre-submission step in an asynchronous workflow, but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus yandex_serp_submit, yandex_serp_status, or yandex_serp_get_result. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.