Retrieve Yandex Metrika counter details by ID. Optionally include extra fields like goals, filters, and grants in the response.
https://yandex.ru/dev/metrika/ru/management/ Get counter by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| field | No | Extra fields comma-separated: goals,mirrors,grants,filters,operations,counter_flags,measurement_tokens | |
| pretty | No | Pretty-print response (1) | |
| callback | No | JSONP callback function name | |
| counterId | Yes | Counter ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Get" strongly implies a read-only single-counter retrieval, which is useful, but the description does not address authentication needs, error handling, missing counters, or response contents.
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 core phrase is short and readable, and the description does not run on. However, the dangling documentation URL in the description does not earn its place in a front-loaded tool description, and the tool mostly needs one clear sentence.
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 single-counter fetch, the description plus fully documented parameters is barely viable, but it still lacks contextual details about authentication, return format, and when selecting this tool is appropriate.
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?
Input schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline parameter comprehension is good. The description's "by ID" only reinforces counterId and does not add semantic value for the other parameters such as field, pretty, or callback.
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?
"Get counter by ID" names a specific retrieve action and resource, and the singular "by ID" makes it clearly distinct from mgmt_counters_list. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus mgmt_counters_list, mgmt_counter_update, or other legacy tools. The phrase "by ID" only implies the tool is for single-counter lookup, but no when-to-use or alternative routing is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.