yandex-api-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

direct.hf.create_callouts

Create Yandex Direct callout ad extensions from a list of texts. Supports account or client-login targeting, dry-run previews, and apply mode for publishing.

Instructions

Human-friendly: create callouts (AdExtensions CALLOUT).

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.create_callouts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`apply`	No
`texts`	No
`dry_run`	No
`account_id`	No	Project profile id (resolves to Direct Client-Login and optional Metrica counter defaults).
`direct_client_login`	No	Override Direct Client-Login for this call (agency multi-project support).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

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 burden, yet it discloses nothing about the mutation being performed. It never states whether this hits the live account, what apply/dry_run actually control, or whether permissions are required — a significant gap for a write tool.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, which is good structure, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise — the brevity comes at the cost of substance.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and partial parameter documentation, the description does far too little. It omits the apply/dry_run execution model, the meaning of texts, and any return/confirmation behavior.

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?

Five parameters with only 40% schema coverage, and the description covers none of them. The two undocumented execution-control params (apply, dry_run) and texts carry no explanation anywhere, so 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.

Purpose3/5

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

The description gives a specific verb+resource (create callouts) and names the underlying entity (AdExtensions CALLOUT), which distinguishes it from attach_callouts_to_ads. However, 'Human-friendly' is filler and it does not clarify the relationship to create_sitelinks_set or attach_callouts_to_ads beyond the raw API type.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing explains when to create a callout set versus attaching existing callouts to ads, nor what apply/dry_run imply for execution. The agent is left to infer the workflow from the parameter names alone.

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

Deploy Server