Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
yandex-api-mcp

yandex-api-mcp

by 5iNeX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

direct.hf.clear_bid_modifiers

Delete bid modifiers in Yandex Direct for specific campaigns or types. Supports dry run and apply for safe updates.

Instructions

Human-friendly: delete bid modifiers (by campaign/type).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "direct.hf.clear_bid_modifiers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applyNo
typesNo
dry_runNo
account_idNoProject profile id (resolves to Direct Client-Login and optional Metrica counter defaults).
campaign_idNo
direct_client_loginNoOverride Direct Client-Login for this call (agency multi-project support).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states deletion but does not disclose destructive permanence, required permissions, dry_run/apply semantics, or reversibility.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with little fluff, but 'Human-friendly:' is vague and the extreme brevity leaves key behavior unspecified for a six-parameter destructive operation.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations, no output schema, six parameters, and 33% schema coverage, the description is incomplete for a destructive mutation tool. It omits critical guardrail details such as dry_run/apply behavior, authentication needs, and expected effects.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, with account_id and direct_client_login documented. The description maps 'campaign/type' but leaves apply, dry_run, and campaign_id semantics unstated, insufficient compensation for the low coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (bid modifiers) with scoping by campaign/type. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling set/list bid-modifier tools, though it does not name an alternative sibling.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. The phrase 'by campaign/type' hints at scope but gives no conditions for choosing this tool over set_bid_modifier_* or list_bidmodifiers.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools