Skip to main content
Glama

Layero

by ru.layero

Подключить Яндекс.Метрику

connect_analytics

Connect Yandex Metrika to a site.

IMPORTANT: authorisation happens IN A BROWSER, and neither you nor the
platform can do that step for the user. The tool returns a link — show
it and ask them to open it and grant access. Do not poll in a loop: the
person may walk away for an hour. Check later through this same tool
without the `branch` argument, or through `site_analytics`.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
branchNoВетка, трафик которой считать. По умолчанию — основная; указывай, только если пользователь просит считать превью-ветку.
projectYesПроект: слаг (`my-site`) или id. Слаг — то, что видно в адресе сайта; если пользователь назвал сайт словами, возьми слаг из `my_projects`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectYes
connectedYes
oauth_urlNo
counter_idNo
next_actionYes
injection_modeNo
tracked_branchNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / branch / description
      Added value: +"Ветка, трафик которой считать. По умолчанию — основная; указывай, только если пользователь просит считать превью-ветку."
    • addedInput schema / properties / project / description
      Added value: +"Проект: слаг (`my-site`) или id. Слаг — то, что видно в адресе сайта; если пользователь назвал сайт словами, возьми слаг из `my_projects`."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the openWorldHint annotation, the description reveals critical behavioral details: authorization happens in the browser, the agent cannot perform that step, the tool returns a link for the user, and polling is discouraged. It also warns that the user may take time, providing a realistic interaction pattern. This is excellent disclosure of side effects and edge cases.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by an IMPORTANT callout for the user-authorization flow. Every sentence adds value: the action, the browser requirement, the link-handling instruction, and the polling/checking caution. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the external auth complexity, the description covers the full flow: the tool returns a link, the user must open it, how to check later, and an alternative tool. Combined with a rich schema and an openWorldHint annotation, the description is complete enough for an agent to handle the process correctly without further clarification.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds a small nuance that checking status later should omit the `branch` argument, but this is a minor usage hint rather than substantive parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Connect Yandex Metrika to a site.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like site_analytics (presumably for viewing analytics) and add_integration (for other integrations).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage context: it tells the agent to show the returned link to the user, not to poll, and to check later through the same tool without the `branch` argument or via `site_analytics`. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions (e.g., when NOT to use), but the guidance is clear enough for correct tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Layero toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action. The deploy lifecycle is cleanly separated into cancel, retry, rollback, diagnose, logs, list, and status, while the site_* tools each answer a different question. Even the two compose_landing tools are explicitly differentiated for model vs. internal use.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix verb-first patterns (check_domain, list_deploys, connect_analytics) with noun-first patterns (site_issues, deploy_logs, env_vars), and some are bare verbs (rollback, whoami). The naming is descriptive and readable, but not consistent enough to predict the style for a new tool.

Tool Count2/5

27 tools exceeds the typical well-scoped range and pushes into 'too many' territory. While the server covers a broad platform scope, many tools are highly specialized (check_copy, site_screenshot), and an agent may be overwhelmed by the sheer number of choices. Consolidation could reduce the load.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is solid: compose, publish, monitor, diagnose, and rollback, with supporting tools for domains, analytics, performance, and content inspection. However, there are no delete/remove operations for projects, domains, or integrations, and integration management is limited to adding. These are minor gaps that agents can work around, but they are notable for a full platform.

Resources