Retrieves Yandex Audience user information to validate API access and confirm authorization. Use it to verify credentials before running audience operations.
Audience: user info (validate access).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden, and it does disclose that this tool validates access, implying a safe read operation with no side effects. It stops short of describing the return payload, permissions required, or any rate limits, so behavioral coverage is only partial.
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 short phrase that is front-loaded with the resource and its purpose, with no wasted text. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, which caps it just below the top score.
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 zero-parameter, likely read-only tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should say what 'user info' actually contains so an agent knows what the validation returns. That gap keeps it at minimum-viable.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond what the empty schema already communicates.
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 names a specific resource (audience user info) and hints at a purpose (validate access), but uses no verb and does not say exactly what is retrieved, making it vague. It also fails to distinguish itself from the analogous sibling wordstat.user_info.
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 parenthetical '(validate access)' implies the tool is used to check credentials or permissions, which is a real usage signal. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no comparison to the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.