Modify an existing Yandex Metrika filter by providing the counter ID, filter ID, and updated filter settings in JSON.
https://yandex.ru/dev/metrika/ru/management/ Update 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) | |
| filterId | Yes | Filter ID | |
| 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Update filter' and gives a body hint, but does not mention side effects, permissions, idempotency, or response behavior. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the consequences of calling the tool.
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 starts with a URL, which is not useful for an agent and clutters the message. The actual purpose is stated in one phrase, but the structure is not front-loaded with the most important information. The inclusion of the body hint is helpful, but the overall format is not concise or well-structured.
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 an update operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what fields can be updated, what the response contains, or any error conditions. An agent would need to consult external documentation to fully understand the operation, making the description 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 already documents all parameters (coverage 100%), but the description adds specific value by indicating the body structure: 'Body: {"filter": {...}}'. This clarifies that the request body should contain a 'filter' object, which is more specific than the generic schema description. Other parameters like filterId and counterId are adequately 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 filter' which is a specific verb+resource, clearly indicating the action on a filter. It is distinct from siblings like create or delete by the verb 'update'. However, it does not elaborate on what updating entails or differentiate from other update tools, but the basic purpose is clear.
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 alternatives like mgmt_filter_create or mgmt_filter_delete. The description only says 'Update filter' without mentioning prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It fails to direct the agent on selecting this tool over similar management operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.