Set up conversion tracking by creating a goal in Yandex Metrika. Provide the counter ID and goal data in JSON to add a new goal.
https://yandex.ru/dev/metrika/ru/management/ Create goal. Body: {"goal": {...}}
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a mutating operation, any required permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The only additional detail is the body structure hint, which is minimal and does not cover behavioral traits.
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 very short and to the point, but it begins with a URL, which is not ideal for front-loading the key action. The core instruction 'Create goal' is placed after the URL. It is concise but could be better structured for quick scanning.
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 is a create operation with a nested body object and no output schema. The description does not explain the expected response, required goal fields, or any prerequisites beyond the required parameters in the schema. It relies on an external API URL for details, which is not self-contained. This is insufficient for an agent to construct a correct request without additional lookup.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a specific body example ({"goal": {...}}), which slightly extends the generic schema description for the body parameter. However, it does not elaborate on the goal structure or required fields, and the other parameters (counterId, pretty) are not enriched beyond 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 clearly states 'Create goal' with a specific verb and resource, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like mgmt_goal_update or mgmt_goal_delete. The inclusion of the API URL provides reference but does not add clarity. It is unambiguous enough to be understood.
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 such as mgmt_goal_update or mgmt_goal_delete. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer the purpose from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.