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

yandex-api-mcp

by 5iNeX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

metrica.hf.counter_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a summary of a Yandex Metrica counter by counter ID, using account ID to resolve access and defaults.

Instructions

Human-friendly: counter summary.

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": "metrica.hf.counter_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
account_idNoProject profile id (resolves to Direct Client-Login and optional Metrica counter defaults).
counter_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaYes
toolYes
errorNo
resultNo
statusYes
choicesNo
messageNo
previewNo
warningsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no mention of required permissions, the scope of the summary, or how counter_id defaults are applied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. The one clause carries almost no information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a tool with 2 parameters (one undocumented), no required fields, and an unresolved overlap with metrica.counter_info, the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Only 50% schema coverage: account_id is documented, but counter_id has no description in the schema. The description compensates for none of this gap and says nothing about how the two parameters interact or what defaults apply.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Human-friendly: counter summary" essentially restates the tool name (counter_summary) without specifying what a counter summary contains or what makes it human-friendly. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling metrica.counter_info, which likely does something similar.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as metrica.counter_info, metrica.report, or metrica.hf.list_accessible_counters. No prerequisites or conditions are stated.

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