yandex-marketing-mcp

yd_adgroups_update

Update ad group settings including name, regions, negative keywords, and tracking parameters to optimize campaign targeting.

Instructions

Update an ad group (name, regions, negatives, tracking).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "adgroup_id": "<adgroup_id>"
    },
    "name": "yd_adgroups_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`adgroup_id`	Yes	Ad group ID
`name`	No
`region_ids`	No
`negative_keywords`	No
`tracking_params`	No	UTM tracking params
`client_login`	No	Optional. Override Client-Login for this call (agency multi-account).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only says 'Update', implying mutation, but does not disclose whether updates are additive or replace existing values, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. With no annotations to provide safety clues, this is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, short sentence that conveys the essential functionality with no wasted words. It lacks some detail but is efficient for its purpose.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (6 parameters, update operation, no output schema), the description is too sparse. It fails to explain return values, behavior of parameters in an update context, or any consequences, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool confidently.

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?

The description maps high-level concepts (name, regions, negatives, tracking) to parameters (name, region_ids, negative_keywords, tracking_params), adding some value beyond the schema. However, it does not detail behavior (e.g., whether region_ids replaces or appends), and client_login is omitted. With 50% schema coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'ad group', and lists the updatable fields (name, regions, negatives, tracking). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like add and get by explicitly indicating a mutation operation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add vs update), no mention of prerequisites like needing an existing ad group, and no discussion of when it should not be used.

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

Deploy Server