yandex-marketing-mcp

yd_metrika_upload_user_params

Upload user parameters to a Yandex Metrika counter to segment audience data for analytics.

Instructions

Upload user parameters.

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>",
      "users": "<users>"
    },
    "name": "yd_metrika_upload_user_params"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`counter_id`	Yes	Counter ID
`users`	Yes	Array of user data
`client_id_type`	No	CLIENT_ID or USER_ID (default CLIENT_ID)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Upload user parameters' but gives no behavioral details (e.g., whether it overwrites existing data, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits). For a mutation tool, this is a critical gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

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

Extremely concise at one sentence, but it lacks necessary detail to be useful. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness; here it under-specifies the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 tool's complexity (3 params, no output schema) and the existence of sibling upload tools, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not explain what 'user parameters' are or how they relate to Yandex Metrika, leaving gaps for correct invocation.

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% with clear descriptions (Counter ID, Array of user data, client_id_type). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description 'Upload user parameters' provides a verb and resource, but 'user parameters' is vague and doesn't clarify what kind of data is being uploaded. It distinguishes from sibling upload tools (calls, conversions, expenses) by resource, but lacks specificity about the data format or purpose.

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 like yd_metrika_upload_calls or yd_metrika_upload_conversions. The description does not specify context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server