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

yandex-api-mcp

by 5iNeX
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

metrica.hf.delete_goal

Delete a Metrica goal by counter and goal ID; use dry-run to preview or apply to confirm the pro write.

Instructions

Human-friendly: delete a Metrica goal (pro-only, apply=true).

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>",
      "goal_id": "<goal_id>",
      "apply": "<apply>"
    },
    "name": "metrica.hf.delete_goal"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applyYes
dry_runNo
goal_idYes
account_idNoProject profile id (resolves to Direct Client-Login and optional Metrica counter defaults).
counter_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the pro-only requirement and that apply=true is needed to execute, hinting at a dry-run default, but never states that the delete is permanent/irreversible or what happens to a goal's data.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the key constraints (pro-only, apply=true) in parenthesis. No wasted words, though it borders on under-specification.

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?

For a destructive delete with no annotations, no output schema, and 80% of parameters undocumented, the description is thin. It omits irreversibility, dry-run semantics, and the meaning of the required identifiers.

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?

Schema coverage is only 20% (only account_id is documented). The description clarifies the meaning of apply=true, but counter_id, goal_id, and dry_run remain unexplained in both schema and description, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (Metrica goal), and the 'human-friendly' qualifier distinguishes it from a raw API wrapper. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling metrica.goals.delete, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Mentions the pro-only constraint and that apply=true is needed, which are useful preconditions, but says nothing about when to prefer this over metrica.goals.delete or the related create_goal/update_goal siblings. Usage is only implied.

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