Update the list of Yandex Metrika accounts by providing user logins in the request body to synchronize account access.
https://yandex.ru/dev/metrika/ru/management/ Update accounts list. Body: {"accounts": [{"user_login": "..."}]}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body. For POST/PUT use the structure from API docs (e.g. {"counter": {...}}). | |
| pretty | No | Pretty-print response (1) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Update accounts list' and gives a body example, without describing whether the operation replaces the entire list, requires specific permissions, or has irreversible effects. No mention of error handling or side effects.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action. It includes a URL to API docs, which is useful but not strictly necessary. The body example is concise and adds value without unnecessary verbosity.
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?
The tool has two parameters with a nested body object, but the description only provides an example without explaining the semantics of the update operation. It doesn't clarify whether the provided list replaces the existing accounts or merges with them, nor does it describe return values or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is incomplete.
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?
The schema's body parameter has a generic description, but the tool description provides a concrete example: Body: {"accounts": [{"user_login": "..."}]}. This clarifies the required structure for the body, adding significant meaning beyond the schema. The pretty parameter is already described in 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?
The description states 'Update accounts list' with a clear verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mgmt_accounts_list or mgmt_account_delete by the verb 'update' and resource 'accounts'. However, it doesn't clarify whether 'update' means replacing the entire list or modifying specific entries, leaving some ambiguity.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer listing/deleting over updating. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.