Skip to main content
Glama
Pavelsiba

yandex-direct-mcp-plus

by Pavelsiba
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Привязать общие минус-фразы

link_negative_keyword_sets
Idempotent

Assign or replace shared negative keyword sets for Yandex.Direct campaigns and ad groups, and clear existing bindings by passing an empty set_ids array.

Instructions

Заменить привязки общих наборов минус-фраз у кампаний и/или групп объявлений. Привязка к кампании действует на все её группы. Пустой set_ids очищает привязки.

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.
set_idsYesПолный новый список наборов объекта — прежние привязки затираются. Пустой массив снимает все
ad_group_idsNoГруппы, которым назначаются наборы
campaign_idsNoКампании, которым назначаются наборы. Привязка на уровне кампании действует на все её группы. Тип кампании сервер читает сам — это дополнительный вызов API; общие наборы поддерживают TEXT_CAMPAIGN, DYNAMIC_TEXT_CAMPAIGN, MOBILE_APP_CAMPAIGN и UNIFIED_CAMPAIGN

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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: links are overwritten wholesale, a campaign-level link cascades to all ad groups, and an empty set_ids removes all links. It doesn't mention permission requirements or error behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the cascade rule and the clearing rule. Every sentence carries distinct information with zero filler.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers overwrite semantics, the campaign-to-ad-group cascade, and the clearing case, and annotations cover the safety profile. Gaps remain around permissions and failure behavior, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 set_ids, campaign_ids, ad_group_ids, and dry_run (including the 'empty array clears all' semantics). The description's 'Пустой set_ids очищает привязки' largely restates what the schema says, adding little. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 specific verb+resource: replace ('Заменить') the links ('привязки') of shared negative keyword sets ('общих наборов минус-фраз') on campaigns and/or ad groups. That distinguishes it from manage_negative_keyword_shared_sets (manages the sets themselves) and set_campaign_negative_keywords. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It gives the key usage semantics (campaign-level link cascades to all its ad groups; empty set_ids clears links), which implies when the tool applies. However, it never states when to prefer this over set_campaign_negative_keywords / set_ad_group_negative_keywords or manage_negative_keyword_shared_sets, so routing guidance is left to inference.

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