yandex-market-mcp-ru

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ym_call_method

Read-only

Execute a read-only Yandex Market Partner API endpoint by operation ID, supplying path, query, or body parameters to retrieve data without changes.

Instructions

Execute one READ endpoint from the catalog by operation_id.

Target API: https://yandex.ru/dev/market/partner-api/doc/ru/.

Reads only: nothing here changes data, so it runs without confirmation. To change data use ym_write_method, to delete use ym_delete_method.

Args: operation_id: id from the catalog (see ym_search_methods). path_values: values for {placeholders} in the path. query: query-string parameters. body: JSON request body (a few read endpoints take one). Returns JSON: {"ok": true, "status", "data"} or the error envelope.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No
`query`	No
`path_values`	No
`operation_id`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 15, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / confirm_write

Removed value: -{
-  "default": false,
-  "title": "Confirm Write",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / i_understand_this_modifies_data

Removed value: -{
-  "default": false,
-  "title": "I Understand This Modifies Data",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}

First observedv0.5.3Sep 11, 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 and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces the read-only safety profile ('nothing here changes data, so it runs without confirmation'). It adds useful behavioral context: the return envelope shape ('{"ok": true, "status", "data"}') and the error envelope mention. It doesn't detail rate limits or auth, but the read-only safety is well covered.

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: the core action and target are in the first sentence, followed by the safety note, sibling routing, and parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place 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 tool's complexity (generic catalog-based executor) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it executes, how to find operation_id, what the parameters mean, and the return envelope. It doesn't explain the error envelope format in detail, but the output schema and the pointer to ym_search_methods cover most needs.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains operation_id as 'id from the catalog (see ym_search_methods)', path_values as 'values for {placeholders} in the path', query as 'query-string parameters', and body as 'JSON request body (a few read endpoints take one)'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about how path_values map to placeholders.

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 verb ('Execute'), a resource ('one READ endpoint from the catalog'), and the key selector ('by operation_id'). It also names the target API and explicitly contrasts with ym_write_method and ym_delete_method, making it easy to distinguish from siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool: for read-only endpoints, and explicitly says to use ym_write_method for changes and ym_delete_method for deletion. It also points to ym_search_methods for finding operation_id, giving clear routing guidance.

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