Update an existing operation in Yandex Metrika by providing counter ID, operation ID, and JSON body with new settings.
https://yandex.ru/dev/metrika/ru/management/ Update operation. Body: {"operation": {...}}
| 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 | |
| operationId | Yes | Operation 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 behavioral disclosureay and only says 'Update operation' with a body pattern. It does not state whether the update is partial or full, what side effects occur, whether authentication or special permissions are required, or what happens to the existing operation data.
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 the key body requirement is front-loaded. The documentation URL and body snippet are useful, but the phrasing is fragmentary and mixes a link with a loose template, preventing a perfect score.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse: it lacks usage context, endpoint-specific documentation, response format, and behavioral caveats. An agent would have to rely on the schema and external docs to call it 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?
The input schema already documents all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nesting context by specifying 'Body: {"operation": {...}}', which is not present in the schema's generic JSON body object, helping the agent construct a valid request.
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 the verb 'Update' and the resource 'operation', which distinguishes it from the many stat_ and mgmt_* sibling tools at a glance. It also gives the expected body shape, but it does not explain what an operation is or which fields are updatable, so it stops short of a 5.
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 about when to use this tool instead of mgmt_operation_create, mgmt_operation_get, or mgmt_operation_delete. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative routing are provided; the only usage signal is the verb 'Update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.