set_sitelinksCreate a new group of 1–8 quick links for Yandex.Direct ads and return its ID to attach to an ad.
Создать новый набор из 1–8 быстрых ссылок. Возвращает ID набора для привязки к объявлению.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | true — ничего не менять: проверить параметры и вернуть тела запросов, которые ушли бы в Директ. Чтение при этом выполняется. | |
| sitelinks | Yes | Новый набор из 1–8 быстрых ссылок |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.0Input schema / properties / dry_runAdded value: +{
+ "description": "true — ничего не менять: проверить параметры и вернуть тела запросов, которые ушли бы в Директ. Чтение при этом выполняется.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v1.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/external-effect nature is already covered. The description adds the 1–8 cardinality constraint and the returned set ID, which is useful, but adds nothing about account mutation scope, dry_run support, or whether an existing set is replaced — and it contradicts nothing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero padding, front-loading the create action and ending with the return value. Efficient, though it is so terse that it omits guidance a mutation tool would benefit from.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter mutation tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the action, the cardinality bound, and the return value (no output schema exists, so naming the returned ID matters). Missing only workflow context and any note that dry_run validation is available.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both parameters, including nested title/href/description fields and the dry_run flag, are documented inline. The description only restates the 1–8 range already expressed by minItems/maxItems, so it does no work beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Создать новый набор из 1–8 быстрых ссылок' (create a new set of 1–8 sitelinks), and notes the returned set ID for binding to an ad. It is clearly distinguishable from list_sitelinks and delete_sitelinks by the verb, though those siblings are never named.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The phrase 'Возвращает ID набора для привязки к объявлению' hints at the create-then-bind workflow, but the agent gets no condition telling it why to pick this over add_ad_extensions or manage_ads.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.