Delete a segment from a Yandex Metrika counter by specifying its counter ID and segment ID to remove unused or incorrect segments.
https://yandex.ru/dev/metrika/ru/management/ Delete segment
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pretty | No | Pretty-print response (1) | |
| counterId | Yes | Counter ID | |
| segmentId | Yes | Segment 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 for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'delete' and includes a documentation URL, with no details about permanence, side effects, permissions, idempotency, or response behavior.
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, but not in a good way: the URL is unexplained and 'Delete segment' merely repeats the tool name. This reads as under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness.
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 destructive management operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain deletion effects, prerequisites, and what the agent should expect. It provides none of that, leaving the description incomplete for correct invocation.
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%, and the property descriptions like 'Counter ID' and 'Segment ID' are present. The tool description itself adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents the parameters sufficiently.
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 verb and resource: 'Delete segment.' It is easy to understand the basic action, but it does not distinguish the tool from sibling segment operations or explain what a segment is beyond the name.
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. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided; the agent must infer usage entirely from the operation name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.