Skip to main content
Glama
Pavelsiba

yandex-direct-mcp-plus

by Pavelsiba

Добавить ключевые слова

add_keywords

Adds keywords to a Yandex.Direct ad group and provides dry-run mode to preview requests without applying changes.

Instructions

Добавить ключевые фразы в группу объявлений.

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.
keywordsYesКлючевые фразы; минус-слова внутри фразы записываются через дефис
ad_group_idYesID группы, в которую добавляются фразы

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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (a mutation) and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds nothing beyond the action itself: no note that keywords are appended rather than replacing, no mention of dry_run validation mode, and no auth/rate-limit context. It does not contradict the annotations but contributes no behavioral value.

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 front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse for a mutation tool with a notable dry_run parameter.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not explain return behavior, the effect of dry_run, or how appended keywords interact with existing ones. The rich schema covers parameters, but the description leaves behavioral completeness largely unaddressed.

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 schema already documents ad_group_id, keywords (including the minus-word hyphen convention), and the dry_run behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource ("Добавить ключевые фразы" = add key phrases) plus the target ("в группу объявлений" = to an ad group). It is understandable in isolation, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as update_keywords, manage_keywords, or add_negative_keyword_shared_sets, so the agent cannot tell precisely when this is the right tool versus those.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions (e.g. the target ad group must exist), and no mention of the dry_run capability. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and schema.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.