Reads Yandex Direct campaign statistics through the configured provider module and normalizes results by day for daily reporting.
Read Yandex Direct campaign statistics through the configured provider MCP module and normalize the result by day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| from | No | ||
| currency | No | ||
| module_id | No | ||
| tool_name | No | ||
| campaign_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two non-obvious behaviors: execution is delegated through a configured provider module, and results are normalized per day. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens with missing dates or modules.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the read action, the delegation path, and the output granularity all appear immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With six undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, an agent needs to know date formats, defaults for the optional params, and error behavior. The description covers only the high-level intent, leaving key invocation details unresolvable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. "Provider module" loosely hints at module_id/tool_name, but from/to formats, currency units, and campaign_ids filtering semantics are entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a concrete verb+resource ("Read Yandex Direct campaign statistics") and adds the normalization behavior, which clearly separates it from ads_yandex_direct_sync, ads_yandex_direct_write, and ads_yandex_direct_create_campaign. It does not name those siblings, but the read-only reporting framing is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to use this versus the other report tools (ads_google_ads_report, ads_microsoft_ads_report, ads_telegram_ads_report) or versus ads_yandex_direct_sync. The only guidance is the implicit intent of "statistics," leaving routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.