yandex-marketing-mcp

yd_changes_check

Check what changed in Yandex Direct campaigns, ad groups, ads, and stats since a specified timestamp.

Instructions

Check what changed since a given timestamp (campaigns, ad groups, ads, stats).

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": {
      "timestamp": "<timestamp>",
      "field_names": "<field_names>"
    },
    "name": "yd_changes_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`timestamp`	Yes	ISO 8601 timestamp, e.g. 2026-04-14T00:00:00Z
`campaign_ids`	No	Campaign IDs to check (max 3000)
`field_names`	Yes	What changes to detect
`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 carries full burden. The verb 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that no mutations occur. It also fails to disclose any other behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or output format.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is informative, no extraneous text.

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 no output schema and no annotations, yet the description provides minimal behavioral context. It does not explain the return structure, pagination, or error conditions, leaving the agent underinformed for a query-like tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only gives a high-level purpose. Parameters are well-described in the schema, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 tool's purpose: checking what changed since a timestamp, listing specific categories (campaigns, ad groups, ads, stats). It distinguishes from sibling tools like yd_campaigns_get, which retrieve current state rather than changes.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use (when you need to see changes since a timestamp) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that for full current state, use get tools.

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

Deploy Server