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

yandex-api-mcp

by 5iNeX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

metrica.counter_info

Retrieve details for a Yandex Metrica counter by ID to inspect its configuration and settings.

Instructions

Get details of a Metrica counter.

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": {
      "counter_id": "<counter_id>"
    },
    "name": "metrica.counter_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNoRaw Metrica management params override (optional).
account_idNoProject profile id (resolves to Direct Client-Login and optional Metrica counter defaults).
counter_idYesMetrica counter ID (required).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
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 behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup, but nothing is said about authentication requirements, whether account_id changes resolution behavior, or what the response contains.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification for a three-parameter tool with a nested object, rather than genuinely 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what 'details' includes and the role of account_id versus counter_id. It leaves the agent guessing about the return payload for an information-retrieval tool.

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 counter_id, account_id, and the raw params override are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline for a fully documented 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 and resource ('Get details of a Metrica counter'), which is enough to know it returns counter metadata, but 'details' is vague and the description does nothing to separate it from siblings like metrica.list_counters or metrica.hf.counter_summary.

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 call this versus metrica.list_counters (discovery) or metrica.hf.counter_summary (analytics summary). The agent must infer the distinction entirely from the names.

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