Retrieve Wordstat demand dynamics for a phrase using UTC dates to track search volume changes over time.
Get Wordstat demand over time using UTC dates YYYY-MM-DD and the server budget gate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | No | PERIOD_MONTHLY | |
| phrase | Yes | ||
| devices | No | ||
| regions | No | ||
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Input schema / properties / to_date / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / to_date / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / to_date / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "phrase",
- "from_date",
- "to_date"
-]New value: +[
+ "phrase",
+ "from_date"
+]v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only safety, open-world access, non-idempotency, and non-destructiveness. The description adds two useful behavioral notes: UTC date handling and a 'server budget gate' that hints at quota or cost constraints, but it does not explain what happens when the gate is hit or what permissions are required.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately compact, though 'server budget gate' is terse to the point of being unclear, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.
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?
For a six-parameter tool with no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is too sparse. It covers date format and hints at a budget constraint, but omits usage guidance and the semantics of period, devices, and regions, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage and six parameters, the description only partly compensates by specifying UTC YYYY-MM-DD dates for the date parameters. It says nothing about period values, device values, region values, or phrase semantics, leaving most parameters 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get Wordstat demand') and adds the temporal dimension ('over time'), which naturally distinguishes it from sibling tools like yandex_wordstat_get_top and yandex_wordstat_regions. It also names the expected date format, making the scope clear without needing to open the schema.
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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yandex_wordstat_get_top or yandex_wordstat_regions. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites beyond a vague 'server budget gate', or any decision criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.