Update existing Yandex Metrika goals by providing counter ID, goal ID, and the new goal parameters.
https://yandex.ru/dev/metrika/ru/management/ Update goal. Body: {"goal": {...}}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body. For POST/PUT use the structure from API docs (e.g. {"counter": {...}}). | |
| goalId | Yes | Goal ID | |
| 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update goal' and gives a body example, but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, response format, or any operational details. This is inadequate for a mutation 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 is extremely concise, essentially one sentence plus a URL and body hint. It is front-loaded with the action. The URL to API docs is arguably extraneous but not harmful. Structure is efficient, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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 tool with 4 parameters, a nested body object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to construct the goal object, what fields are required, or what the response looks like. It points to external documentation but does not integrate essential context into the description.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small value by specifying the body structure as {'goal': {...}}, which contrasts with the generic schema description that mentions 'counter'. However, it does not elaborate on counterId or goalId beyond their schema descriptions.
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 a clear action 'Update goal' with the resource being a goal in Yandex Metrika. It is not a tautology and the name itself reinforces the purpose. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like mgmt_goal_create or mgmt_goal_delete, relying on the name for distinction.
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. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or conditions that would make this tool preferable over create/delete or other management tools. The description only states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.