yandex-marketing-mcp

yd_metrika_annotation_update

Update existing chart annotations in Yandex Metrica by specifying counter ID, annotation ID, and optional new date, title, or message.

Instructions

Update 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>",
      "annotation_id": "<annotation_id>"
    },
    "name": "yd_metrika_annotation_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`counter_id`	Yes	Counter ID
`annotation_id`	Yes	Annotation ID
`date`	No	New date
`title`	No	New title
`message`	No	New message

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?

No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Update' without mentioning permissions, error cases, side effects, or idempotency.

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?

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be expanded slightly to include key behavioral context without losing brevity.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain required fields (counter_id, annotation_id) or constraints on optional fields.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Update' and the resource 'a chart annotation'. It is specific but does not differentiate from siblings like create or delete.

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_create or yd_metrika_annotation_delete. 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