yandex-marketing-mcp

yd_bid_modifiers_set

Update existing bid modifiers by their IDs with new modifier percent values for Yandex Direct advertising campaigns.

Instructions

Update existing bid modifiers by their IDs.

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": {
      "modifiers": "<modifiers>"
    },
    "name": "yd_bid_modifiers_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`modifiers`	Yes
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'update...by their IDs' without mentioning effects like replacement, partial update, error handling for missing IDs, permissions, or whether the update is atomic. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence of 7 words, highly concise with no wasted text. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices important detail. It earns a 4 for efficiency but loses a point for under-specification.

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?

The tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no behavioral annotations. The description only covers the basic action but omits context such as whether multiple modifiers can be updated simultaneously (hinted by schema array), the result of updating a non-existent ID, or any side effects. For a simple update tool, it is minimally complete but lacks crucial completeness for an AI agent to use safely.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (client_login and item properties), but the tool description adds no extra meaning. It does not explain the valid range for bid_modifier or how the update behaves (e.g., merging vs overriding). The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 the verb 'update', the resource 'bid modifiers', and the mechanism 'by their IDs'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like add, delete, get, and toggle.

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 use for existing modifiers by referencing 'existing', and the sibling tools provide context (e.g., add for new, delete for removal). However, no explicit alternatives or exclusion criteria are given.

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

Deploy Server