yandex-direct-mcp

Что ещё умеет сервер

direct_catalog

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover and enable any Yandex Direct API method: lists all declared and hidden tools, clarifying how to activate unavailable ones to expand your automation capabilities.

Instructions

Перечисляет ВСЕ методы API Директа и показывает, какие из них объявлены сейчас, а какие скрыты и как их включить. Зовите, когда нужного инструмента не видно среди доступных: скорее всего он существует, но не объявлен ради экономии контекста.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "direct_catalog"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that it lists both declared and hidden methods and shows how to enable them, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict anything.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Lists ALL API methods') and then adds usage guidance and rationale. Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has no parameters and no output schema. The description tells the agent what it does and when to use it, but doesn't describe the output format. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but could mention the structure of the returned list. Slight gap.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty object). Per the rubric, the baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools. The description doesn't need to add parameter info since there are none, and it doesn't.

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 explicitly states the tool lists ALL API methods of Direct, shows which are declared vs hidden, and how to enable them. It clearly distinguishes from sibling get methods by being the catalog of all methods, not a specific data retriever.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives an explicit trigger condition: 'call when the needed tool is not visible among available ones' and explains that the tool likely exists but is hidden to save context. This tells the agent exactly when to use it, and implicitly when not (when the tool is already visible).

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

Deploy Server