Skip to main content
Glama
Pavelsiba

yandex-direct-mcp-plus

by Pavelsiba
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Обновить кампанию

update_campaign
Idempotent

Update a Yandex.Direct campaign's name, daily budget, UTM tracking, or status (suspend, resume, archive, unarchive).

Instructions

Обновить кампанию: название, бюджет (руб), UTM-разметку и/или статус (SUSPEND/RESUME/ARCHIVE/UNARCHIVE). Разметка действует на ссылки всех объявлений кампании.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoНовое название
statusNoДействие со статусом показов: SUSPEND (остановить), RESUME, ARCHIVE, UNARCHIVE
dry_runNotrue — ничего не менять: проверить параметры и вернуть тела запросов, которые ушли бы в Директ. Чтение при этом выполняется.
campaign_idYesID кампании, десятичная строка
daily_budgetNoНовый дневной бюджет в рублях
tracking_paramsNoUTM-разметка, дописывается к ссылкам всех объявлений кампании. Без ведущего «?»: utm_source=yandex&utm_campaign={campaign_id}. Допустимы подстановки Директа в фигурных скобках. null снимает разметку

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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses a genuine cross-entity side effect: the tracking markup is applied to the links of ALL ads in the campaign, and null removes it. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious consequence annotations cannot express, though it omits permission/auth requirements and the consequences of ARCHIVE.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. The enumeration of fields partially duplicates the schema, which is the only minor redundancy.

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 plus full schema coverage and safety annotations cover the essentials, and it adds the important cross-entity UTM effect. It stops short of explaining permission requirements or whether ARCHIVE/UNARCHIVE is reversible, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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%: every parameter (campaign_id pattern, status enum, dry_run semantics, budget minimum, tracking_params format and null behavior) is already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the field list, adding no syntax or format detail beyond that baseline.

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+resource ('Обновить кампанию') and enumerates exactly which fields can change: name, budget, UTM tracking, status. It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the ambiguous sibling 'manage_campaigns', so an agent must still guess which updater to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives such as manage_campaigns. The partial-update nature ('и/или') is implied but the tool never says under what conditions an agent should choose it over the sibling campaign manager.

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