Skip to main content
Glama
Pavelsiba

yandex-direct-mcp-plus

by Pavelsiba
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Создать корректировки ставок

add_bid_adjustments

Create bid adjustments for Yandex.Direct campaigns or ad groups by specifying percentage modifiers; 100 keeps bids unchanged, 0 disables impressions for that segment.

Instructions

Создать корректировки ставок на кампаниях или группах. Коэффициент — проценты от ставки: 100 ничего не меняет, 0 отключает показы среза.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNotrue — ничего не менять: проверить параметры и вернуть тела запросов, которые ушли бы в Директ. Чтение при этом выполняется.
adjustmentsYesКорректировки; каждая ставится каждому объекту из campaign_ids или ad_group_ids. Всего за вызов не больше 1000 корректировок — это цели, умноженные на виды
ad_group_idsNoГруппы, которым добавляются корректировки; вместо campaign_ids
campaign_idsNoКампании, которым добавляются корректировки; вместо ad_group_ids

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.7.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "true — ничего не менять: проверить параметры и вернуть тела запросов, которые ушли бы в Директ. Чтение при этом выполняется.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv1.6.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds valuable domain semantics for the modifier value (100 = unchanged, 0 = disables impressions for the segment). It says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or whether existing adjustments are overwritten — and the 100 semantics largely duplicates the bid_modifier schema field.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core action plus the counterintuitive coefficient convention (0 disables, not zeroes the bid) is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The rich schema covers all four parameters, but for a mutation tool with no output schema the description should still say when to use it versus set_bid_adjustments and whether repeated calls overwrite. Adequate but with real gaps around the sibling boundary.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the nested type/gender/region/income fields are already fully documented in the schema. The description's coefficient explanation adds marginal value beyond that, warranting the baseline 3 rather than more.

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 concrete verb+resource: creating bid adjustments on campaigns or ad groups. The scope is clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely named siblings set_bid_adjustments and get_bid_adjustments, leaving the create-vs-update boundary ambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite three sibling tools (set_bid_adjustments, get_bid_adjustments, delete_bid_adjustments) operating on the same resource. An agent must guess whether to call this or set_bid_adjustments when a coefficient already exists.

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