yandex-api-mcp

by 5iNeX

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

direct.list_sitelinks

Retrieve sitelinks sets from Yandex Direct to manage ad extensions and enhance campaign performance.

Instructions

List sitelinks sets.

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_sitelinks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ids`	No	Sitelinks set Ids (required unless using params override).
`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	Sitelinks field names (default: Id, Sitelinks).
`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

C2.8/5.0

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. "List" weakly implies read-only, but there is nothing about auth requirements, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the Direct API returns for a sitelinks query.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is sparse rather than economical – brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficient communication.

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?

A 7-parameter tool with nested objects (page, params, selection_criteria), no output schema, and no annotations needs far more descriptive support than one line. Nothing explains pagination semantics or the advanced params/override interaction.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema; the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb + resource ("List sitelinks sets"), so an agent knows it retrieves sitelinks sets rather than creating or attaching them. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like direct.hf.create_sitelinks_set or direct.hf.attach_sitelinks_to_ads.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server