Updates an existing Yandex Metrica goal by counter and goal ID using a payload of new settings, so you can adjust conversion tracking as campaign needs change.
Metrica: update goal (pro-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| goal_id | Yes | ||
| payload | 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 behavioral burden. It discloses the pro-only constraint but not whether payload replaces or patches the goal, what permissions are required, whether the update is reversible, or what side effects occur. For an update mutation this is a significant gap.
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?
The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is severely under-specified rather than genuinely concise. The 'Metrica:' prefix adds little value beyond the tool namespace already present in the name.
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?
No output schema and no annotations accompany a nested payload object and 25% schema coverage. The one-line description leaves the agent without mutation semantics, required parameter details, or any guidance for executing this update 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 25%, with just account_id documented. The description mentions no parameters at all, leaving required counter_id, goal_id, and the nested payload object completely undocumented in both structured and prose fields.
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 ('update') and resource ('goal'), and adds a pro-only constraint. It distinguishes the action from sibling tools like create/delete, though it does not differentiate from metrica.hf.update_goal or clarify what an update can change.
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?
The only usage guidance is '(pro-only)', which is a licensing constraint rather than a routing rule. It does not name alternatives such as metrica.hf.update_goal or metrica.goals.create/delete, nor does it describe when this tool should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.