Skip to main content
Glama
askads

Yandex Direct MCP

by askads
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Баланс аккаунта

get_balance
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves Yandex Direct account balance and financial fields (amount, available for transfer, currency, discount, account ID) for the token's account, a client login, or up to 50 agency logins.

Instructions

Возвращает баланс общего счёта и финансовые поля (Amount, AmountAvailableForTransfer, Currency, Discount, AccountID) через устаревший сервис AccountManagement Live v4 — единственный API Яндекс Директа, который отдаёт баланс (в v5 финансового метода нет). Amount — строка в ВАЛЮТЕ АККАУНТА (не в микроединицах); отрицательный Amount означает задолженность. По умолчанию — собственный аккаунт токена, а при переданном client_login — счёт этого клиента; чтобы получить несколько общих счетов разом (агентство, до 50 логинов), передать logins.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loginsNoЛогины аккаунтов, по которым нужны данные. По умолчанию — собственный аккаунт токена.
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 / logins / description
      Previous value: -"Account logins to fetch. Defaults to the token's own account."New value: +"Логины аккаунтов, по которым нужны данные. По умолчанию — собственный аккаунт токена."
  3. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds substantive context: the call goes through the legacy AccountManagement Live v4 surface, Amount is a string in account currency (not micro-units), and a negative Amount means debt. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent would otherwise get wrong; only rate limits/legacy-service constraints are unaddressed.

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?

Front-loaded: the return fields and purpose come first, followed by the legacy-API caveat and then parameter routing. The v4-vs-v5 parenthetical is long but genuinely load-bearing for an agent deciding whether another tool could do the job. Slightly denser than needed but no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming all five financial fields plus the currency/debt semantics. What remains missing is the shape of the response when 'logins' is used (single object vs per-login array) and any partial-failure behavior, a minor gap for a read-only 2-param tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: the agency 'up to 50 logins' cap and the bulk-multi-account use case for 'logins'. It also restates the client_login fallback chain, which the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Возвращает баланс общего счёта и финансовые поля') and enumerates the returned fields by name. It also differentiates itself structurally from every sibling by noting it is the only Yandex Direct API surface that exposes balance (v5 has no financial method), so an agent can rule out get_account_info or the campaign tools for this need.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit routing for all three modes: default = token's own account, client_login = that client's account, logins = multiple shared accounts (agency, up to 50 logins). This is clear selection guidance for the parameters. It stops short of stating exclusions or error conditions, which keeps it from a 5.

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