Delete a Yandex Metrica goal by counter ID and goal ID. Use this pro-only write operation to remove an unwanted conversion goal from a specific counter.
Metrica: delete goal (pro-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal_id | Yes | ||
| account_id | No | Project profile id (resolves to Direct Client-Login and optional Metrica counter defaults). | |
| counter_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a destructive mutation. It discloses only the pro-only constraint and says nothing about irreversibility, whether dependent goals/stats are affected, or required permissions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single short, front-loaded sentence with no waste — but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficiently complete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, a one-clause description is far too thin to let an agent invoke it safely and correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (account_id documented; counter_id and goal_id bare). The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented inputs.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('delete goal') plus a constraint ('pro-only'), which is clearer than a bare name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling deletion tools such as metrica.hf.delete_goal or metrica.goals.update/list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'pro-only' is the only usage hint, indicating a tariff prerequisite. There is no statement of when to use this versus metrica.hf.delete_goal or how it differs from the rest of the metrica.goals.* family.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.