yandex-api-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

direct.list_bids

Fetch bids from Yandex Direct using pagination, field selection, and selection criteria to inspect or manage keyword bid data.

Instructions

List bids.

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.list_bids"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Pagination: {"limit": int, "offset": int}.
`params`	No	Raw Direct params override (advanced).
`account_id`	No	Project profile id (resolves to Direct Client-Login and optional Metrica counter defaults).
`field_names`	No	Bid field names (default: CampaignId, KeywordId).
`selection_criteria`	No	Direct API SelectionCriteria object (optional).
`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

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. "List" implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose pagination, default fields, authentication needs, or return behavior.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

At two words, it is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with six optional parameters and no annotations. The brevity comes at the cost of appropriate sizing rather than being a strength.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain at least return behavior or usage context. The schema covers parameters, but the description leaves the tool's output, defaults, and sibling distinction completely unspecified.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including nested pagination and advanced override fields. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that baseline.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description "List bids." merely restates the tool name and resource. It does not specify what kind of bids, the scope, or how it differs from siblings such as direct.hf.get_bids_summary or direct.list_bidmodifiers.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like direct.hf.get_bids_summary or direct.list_bidmodifiers. No prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions are provided.

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

Deploy Server