yandex-api-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

direct.hf.set_campaign_negative_keywords

Set or update negative keywords for a Yandex Direct campaign to block irrelevant search queries and refine ad targeting.

Instructions

Human-friendly: set campaign negative keywords.

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.set_campaign_negative_keywords"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`apply`	No
`items`	No
`dry_run`	No
`account_id`	No	Project profile id (resolves to Direct Client-Login and optional Metrica counter defaults).
`campaign_id`	No
`campaign_name`	No
`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 disclosure burden for a mutation tool. Critically, 'set' is ambiguous about whether the existing negative keyword list is replaced or appended to, and nothing explains the apply vs dry_run behavior or required auth (e.g., direct_client_login).

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 sentence is short and front-loaded, but the 'Human-friendly:' prefix is filler that earns no place, and the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this one-line description is wholly inadequate. An agent lacks the information needed to safely set negative keywords, especially the replace-vs-append semantics and the apply/dry_run contract.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Seven parameters exist with only 29% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It gives no meaning for items, apply, dry_run, campaign_id vs campaign_name, or the two documented override params, so it 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a clear verb+resource combination (set negative keywords for a campaign), so an agent knows the operation. However, it does not distinguish this from the close sibling direct.hf.set_adgroup_negative_keywords, which sets the same kind of entity at a different scope.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the adgroup-level variant, nor any mention of prerequisites or the apply/dry_run workflow. The agent is left to infer everything from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server