Export Yandex Metrica log presets for a counter and date range so you can retrieve raw session data for offline analysis.
Human-friendly: logs export preset (optional).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_to | No | ||
| date_from | No | ||
| account_id | No | Project profile id (resolves to Direct Client-Login and optional Metrica counter defaults). | |
| counter_id | No |
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, and it discloses nothing: no indication of whether this reads or mutates state, what a 'preset' resolves to, what defaults it applies, or what permissions are needed. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a complete 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?
It is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise — a single fragment that conveys no actionable content. Brevity here reflects missing information, not disciplined editing.
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 four parameters (three undocumented), no annotations, and no output schema, the description should carry a large share of the explanatory load; instead it offers nothing beyond the name. An agent has no basis to decide whether or how to call it.
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% (only account_id documented), so the description must compensate for date_to, date_from, and counter_id — it supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever. The one useful hint (account_id resolving to client-login/counter defaults) lives in the schema, not the description.
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?
The description 'logs export preset' essentially restates the tool name (metrica.hf.logs_export_preset) with the adjective 'Human-friendly' and '(optional)' added. It does not state a verb or what the tool actually does to or with a preset, nor does it distinguish it from sibling metrica.logs_export.
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 guidance on when to use this versus metrica.logs_export or any other sibling. The word '(optional)' hints that the tool may be skippable but gives no condition, alternative, or prerequisite for invoking it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.