avito-mcp-ru

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

avito_write_raw

Create or update records at any Avito API path, including endpoints outside the standard catalog. Specify method, path, query, and JSON body; set confirm_write=true to apply changes.

Instructions

Create or update data at ANY path, including paths not in the catalog.

Target API: https://developers.avito.ru/api-catalog.

POST, PUT and PATCH only; requires confirm_write=true.

Args: method: POST, PUT or PATCH. path: full path beginning with '/'. host: host override; defaults to the service's default host. query: query-string parameters. body: JSON request body. confirm_write: must be true. Returns JSON: {"ok": true, "status", "data"} or the error envelope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`host`	No
`path`	Yes
`query`	No
`method`	Yes
`confirm_write`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, it adds the confirm_write requirement, method restrictions, and the return format. It does not detail error handling or side effects, but given readOnlyHint false and openWorldHint true, it sufficiently discloses behavioral traits.

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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, followed by constraints and parameter semantics. Every sentence contributes, with 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It includes all essential operational details, though it omits explicit authentication prerequisites.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: method values, path format, host default, query, body, and confirm_write requirement. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states it creates or updates data at any path, including uncatalogued paths, and lists allowed methods (POST, PUT, PATCH). This distinguishes it from siblings like avito_get_raw and avito_delete_raw, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage for arbitrary raw writes, especially paths outside the catalog, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer them. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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