Skip to main content
Glama
Pavelsiba

yandex-direct-mcp-plus

by Pavelsiba
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Удалить визитки

delete_vcards
Destructive

Delete Yandex.Direct vCards by ID to permanently remove them; irreversible. Per-vCard failures return ❌ while other IDs are still deleted.

Instructions

Удалить визитки по ID; удаление необратимо. Отказ по отдельной визитке приходит строкой ❌ в ответе, остальные при этом удалены.

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.
vcard_idsYesВизитки, которые нужно удалить; ID берутся из list_vcards

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: deletion is irreversible, and a per-vcard failure returns a ❌ string while the remaining vcards are still deleted. This partial-failure semantics is exactly what an agent needs and is not in the annotations.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the irreversible-deletion fact front-loaded ahead of the failure-mode detail. Efficient and well-structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema and annotations covering only the safety profile, the description usefully discloses the response shape on partial failure (❌ string) and the irreversibility. Only the dry_run parameter behavior is left entirely to the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions ID-based targeting but adds no detail on the dry_run parameter or ID format beyond what the schema already documents.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb+resource ('Удалить визитки по ID') and its scope, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling list_vcards and the many non-delete siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'delete' and the 'по ID' qualifier, and the schema points to list_vcards as the ID source, but the description itself names no alternative or explicit when-to-use/when-not condition. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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