Fetch lookalike audience segments from Yandex Audience with pagination and field selection to target similar users or analyze audience reach.
Audience: list lookalikes (best effort).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| fields | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden. The parenthetical "(best effort)" is a genuinely useful caveat implying results may be incomplete, but nothing is said about pagination behavior, authentication needs, or result ordering. One hint does not cover a mutation-free but opaque list call.
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?
It is a single, front-loaded clause with no padding, which is structurally fine. The brevity, however, tips into under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 3-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain pagination and what a lookalike record contains. Neither is present, leaving the agent under-informed before 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description mentions none of the three parameters. limit, offset, and fields are entirely undocumented in both places, so the agent cannot know that pagination and field projection are even supported. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
"list lookalikes" gives a clear verb+resource, and the "Audience:" prefix anchors it to the audience API family. However, it does nothing to separate it from the sibling audience.lookalikes.get, nor does it clarify what a lookalike entity is in this context.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as audience.lookalikes.get for a single entity. The agent is left to infer that 'list' means enumeration of many lookalikes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.