Удалить счётчик Метрики, созданный для этого сайта, и убрать его код со страниц.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"slug": "<slug>"
},
"name": "vebhost_metrika_delete"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important side effect beyond the name: the tracker code is also removed from the site's pages. It does not state irreversibility, whether historical statistics are lost, permission requirements, or any confirmation step — significant omissions for an irreversible destructive operation.
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 sentence with the destructive verb front-loaded and no filler; both clauses (counter deletion and code removal) carry distinct information. It is efficient, though the compactness leaves room that could be spent on prerequisites.
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 destructive one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is deleted and one side effect, which is the minimum viable. It omits reversibility, error/failure conditions, and any parameter clarification the empty schema leaves open.
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 single 'slug' parameter is undocumented, so the description must compensate. It partially does, implying that the counter is identified indirectly via 'this site', but it never states whether slug is the site slug or a counter identifier, nor its format.
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 gives a specific verb and resource (delete the Metrika counter) plus a concrete scope ('created for this site'), which lets an agent distinguish it from generic deletion siblings like vebhost_delete_site or vebhost_delete_file. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so a 4 rather than a 5.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (counter must exist, correct site selected), and no named alternative for undoing or disabling tracking instead of deleting. Usage is only inferable from the verb and resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.