Skip to main content
Glama
Pavelsiba

yandex-direct-mcp-plus

by Pavelsiba

Удалить уточнения

delete_ad_extensions
Destructive

Permanently deletes Yandex.Direct ad extensions by ID; deletion is irreversible. Use dry-run first to preview requests and remove obsolete extensions safely.

Instructions

Удалить уточнения по ID. ⚠️ Необратимо.

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.
ad_extension_idsYesУточнения, которые будут удалены безвозвратно

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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is externally covered. The description adds the 'Необратимо' (irreversible) warning, which reinforces but does not go far beyond the destructive hint, and says nothing about permissions, batch limits, or the dry_run option.

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?

Two short sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded via an emoji flag; nothing is redundant. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a destructive operation.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema fully documents both params, so structural coverage is adequate. However, for a destructive, open-world delete with no output schema, the description omits any usage context or mention of the dry_run safeguard, leaving a clear gap.

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 both parameters (ad_extension_ids, dry_run) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'по ID' and adds no syntax, batching, or dry_run semantics beyond the structured data, making baseline 3 correct.

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 (Удалить) and resource (уточнения) with scope (по ID), so the agent knows exactly what is removed. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like add_ad_extensions or list_ad_extensions, but the verb makes the intent unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as list_ad_extensions or add_ad_extensions. The available dry_run safety path is not surfaced in the description at all, leaving the agent no routing or precondition guidance.

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