Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
yandex-direct-mcp

yandex-direct-mcp

by artgas1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

adgroups.get

direct_adgroups_get
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve ad group parameters from Yandex Direct using filters like campaign IDs, statuses, or types to power campaign management tasks.

Instructions

Возвращает параметры групп, отвечающих заданным критериям.

Служба adgroups, метод get (чтение). Документация: https://yandex.ru/dev/direct/doc/ru/adgroups/get

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "SelectionCriteria": "<SelectionCriteria>",
      "FieldNames": "<FieldNames>"
    },
    "name": "direct_adgroups_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
PageNoобъект LimitOffset: Limit, Offset (точная схема: direct_schema с type=LimitOffset)
FieldNamesYes12 значений (Id, CampaignId, Status, Name, …) — полный список: direct_fields
SelectionCriteriaYesобъект AdGroupsSelectionCriteria: CampaignIds, Ids, Types, Statuses, TagIds, Tags, AppIconStatuses, ServingStatuses, NegativeKeywordSharedSetIds (точная схема: direct_schema с type=AdGroupsSelectionCriteria)
SmartAdGroupFieldNamesNoодно из: FeedId, AdTitleSource, AdBodySource
UnifiedAdGroupFieldNamesNoодно из: OfferRetargeting
MobileAppAdGroupFieldNamesNoодно из: StoreUrl, TargetDeviceType, TargetCarrier, TargetOperatingSystemVersion, AppIconModeration, AppAvailabilityStatus, AppOperatingSystemType
DynamicTextAdGroupFieldNamesNoодно из: AutotargetingCategories, AutotargetingSettings, DomainUrl, DomainUrlProcessingStatus
TextAdGroupFeedParamsFieldNamesNoодно из: FeedId, FeedCategoryIds
DynamicTextFeedAdGroupFieldNamesNoодно из: AutotargetingCategories, AutotargetingSettings, Source, FeedId, SourceType, SourceProcessingStatus
AutotargetingSettingsCategoriesFieldNamesNoодно из: Exact, Narrow, Alternative, Accessory, Broader
AutotargetingSettingsBrandOptionsFieldNamesNoодно из: WithoutBrands, WithAdvertiserBrand, WithCompetitorsBrand

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond restating that this is a read operation and that results are filtered by criteria; it does not disclose pagination behavior, response shape, or any API-specific quirks.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the key purpose. The second sentence restates what the title already conveys, but the documentation link provides useful reference value, so it is not wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a fairly complex tool with 11 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The rich schema covers parameter semantics well, but the description omits contextual guidance such as pagination usage, the relationship between FieldNames and type-specific field arrays, or what the returned group objects look like.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already has 100% parameter description coverage, including detailed meaning for SelectionCriteria, FieldNames, Page, and each type-specific field-name array. The description does not need to add parameter detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action — returning parameters of ad groups that match given criteria — and identifies the exact API service and method ('Служба adgroups, метод get (чтение)'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools for other resources like ads, campaigns, and keywords.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is implied: an agent can infer this tool should be used when ad group parameters matching selection criteria need to be retrieved. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be better for related operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools