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

yandex-api-mcp

by 5iNeX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

direct.hf.plan_changes

Build a preview-only change plan for Yandex Direct keywords, negatives, and bids so you can review intended operations before applying changes.

Instructions

Human-friendly: build an opaque change plan for Direct (preview-only).

Tool call template

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": {
      "operations": "<operations>"
    },
    "name": "direct.hf.plan_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idNoProject profile id (resolves to Direct Client-Login and optional Metrica counter defaults).
operationsYes
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

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Preview-only' does tell the agent no mutation occurs, which is useful, but the description never explains what the 'opaque' plan contains, how long it stays valid, or how it is consumed downstream.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; it is efficient. It errs on the side of being too thin rather than too long.

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?

No output schema and no annotations for a planning tool whose result is explicitly 'opaque' and meant to be applied later. An agent cannot tell what it will receive or how to proceed, leaving a major gap.

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?

With only 67% schema description coverage and a nested operations array whose 'op' enum values are the crux, the description adds nothing about parameters. It leaves the agent to infer that operations drives the plan entirely from the schema.

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?

States a verb (build) and resource (change plan for Direct), but the qualifiers 'Human-friendly' and 'opaque' add confusion rather than precision. It does not distinguish this from close siblings like direct.hf.bid_sweep_plan or explain its relationship to direct.hf.apply_plan.

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?

'(preview-only)' implies a dry-run intent, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention that the plan is meant to feed direct.hf.apply_plan, and no exclusions versus other planning tools such as bid_sweep_plan.

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