Create a filter for a Yandex Metrika counter to manage which data is processed, ensuring accurate analytics and reporting.
https://yandex.ru/dev/metrika/ru/management/ Create filter. Body: {"filter": {...}}
| 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) | |
| 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 must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Create filter.' It doesn't mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. Mutation is implied but not stated explicitly.
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 extremely short, but that's under-specification, not conciseness. It lacks structure and front-loads nothing beyond a URL and a bare phrase. Every word is minimal but not earned value.
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 creation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It omits prerequisites, expected response, and behavior on errors. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100% (all params have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete body template ({"filter": {...}}) that the generic schema description lacks, providing a useful structural hint for the nested body object.
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 clear verb-resource pair: 'Create filter.' This distinguishes it from the many sibling filter tools (list, get, update, delete) by indicating creation. However, it gives no detail on what a filter is or what it does, so it's not fully self-contained.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when filters are needed, or compare to similar management tools. An agent gets no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.