yandex-marketing-mcp

yd_metrika_annotation_create

Create a chart annotation in Yandex Metrica by specifying counter ID, date, and title to mark events on your analytics timeline.

Instructions

Create a chart annotation.

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": {
      "counter_id": "<counter_id>",
      "date": "<date>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "yd_metrika_annotation_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`counter_id`	Yes	Counter ID
`date`	Yes	Date YYYY-MM-DD
`title`	Yes	Annotation title
`message`	No	Optional message

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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 gives no information about side effects, return values, idempotency, or error conditions. 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but insufficient given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations. It front-loads the purpose but omits important details.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool definition is incomplete. The agent lacks information about return values, typical usage, and potential pitfalls.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not explain what a 'chart annotation' is or how the parameters relate to each other.

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 states the action (Create) and resource (chart annotation), which is clear. However, it does not explicitly mention Yandex Metrika, though the tool name implies it. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete, update, and get. Still, 'chart annotation' could be more specific.

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, such as yd_metrika_annotation_update or other metrika create tools. No prerequisites or context provided.

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

Deploy Server