List all goals for a Yandex Metrica counter by counter ID to inspect conversion targets and tracking settings.
Metrica: list goals for a counter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No | ||
| 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. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about pagination, return shape, ordering, or whether an empty counter errors out — all relevant for a listing tool with no annotation cover.
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 sentence with the resource scoping front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to be fully useful.
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?
With no output schema, no annotations, an undocumented 'params' object, and no return-value or pagination context, the description leaves the agent under-equipped for a 3-parameter listing tool.
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 coverage is only 33%: account_id is documented in the schema, counter_id and the opaque 'params' object are not. The phrase 'for a counter' nominally maps to counter_id but adds no format, ID-source, or meaning beyond the parameter name, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('list goals') scoped to 'a counter', so an agent can distinguish it from metrica.goals.get/create/update/delete at a glance. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting those siblings.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as metrica.goals.get (single goal) or metrica.list_counters. The agent must infer usage purely from the verb 'list'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.