Skip to main content
Glama
askads

Yandex Direct MCP

by askads
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Действие с объявлениями

ad_action
Destructive

Performs bulk actions on ads by ID, including moderate, suspend, resume, archive, unarchive, or delete. Apply moderation or pause, restore, or remove ads across a Yandex Direct account.

Instructions

Выполняет действие над объявлениями по id: moderate, suspend, resume, archive, unarchive или delete.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsYesId объявлений, к которым применить действие.
actionYes
client_loginNoЛогин клиента агентства или кабинета в управлении (из list_clients). Если не указан — YANDEX_DIRECT_LOGIN из конфигурации, а без него собственный аккаунт токена.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / client_login
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Логин клиента агентства или кабинета в управлении (из list_clients). Если не указан — YANDEX_DIRECT_LOGIN из конфигурации, а без него собственный аккаунт токена.",
+  "pattern": "^[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9._@-]{0,99}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / ids / description
      Previous value: -"Ad ids to act on."New value: +"Id объявлений, к которым применить действие."
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond repeating the action enum: it does not say whether delete is irreversible, whether suspend loses settings, or what preconditions (campaign state, moderation) apply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the enumeration is dense but necessary. Slightly long action list aside, nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive, non-idempotent multi-action tool with no output schema, the description leaves key questions unanswered: which operations are reversible, what state transitions are invalid, and what the call returns. The action semantics are the main gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 67% and both ids and client_login carry descriptions (including the login fallback logic). The action enum itself has no description in the schema, and the tool description only echoes the values without explaining what moderate or archive vs delete actually do.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Names a specific verb (выполняет действие) and resource (объявления) and enumerates the allowed operations, so an agent understands it is a state-change tool over ad IDs. It implicitly separates itself from list_ads/update_text_ad by listing lifecycle actions only, though it never states the contrast explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over update_text_ad (content edits) or delete_ad_groups (group-level deletion). The presence of both archive/unarchive/delete in one tool makes routing decisions non-obvious, yet nothing addresses them.

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