Fetch Yandex Wordstat search queries and associations for a phrase, filtered by region and device.
Wordstat top requests + associations; num_phrases 1..2000; devices DEVICE_* list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phrase | Yes | ||
| devices | No | ||
| regions | Yes | ||
| num_phrases | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Input schema / properties / devicesAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful constraint (num_phrases 1..2000) and the DEVICE_* value family, but says nothing about what is returned or how results are scoped by phrase/regions.
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?
Three compact fragments, front-loaded with the operation, with zero filler. It is slightly clipped to the point of under-specification, but it never wastes a sentence.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the definition still omits when-to-use routing against sibling Wordstat tools and the required format/source for 'regions'. For a 4-param read tool whose schema has 0% description coverage, this leaves meaningful 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden; it supplies a real range for num_phrases and hints at the allowed device token family, which the schema lacks. However, the required 'phrase' and 'regions' parameters get no format or source guidance (e.g. that regions come from yandex_wordstat_regions), so compensation is partial.
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 fragment 'Wordstat top requests + associations' names the resource and implies a top/associations retrieval, but never states a verb or that it operates on a given search phrase. It does not distinguish itself from its close siblings yandex_wordstat_dynamics or yandex_wordstat_regions, so an agent must infer the difference.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the three sibling Wordstat tools that would be the natural alternatives. The agent is left to guess when top-requests is the right call versus dynamics or regions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.