Read Yandex Direct campaign performance for a date range, filter by campaign IDs and fields, and obtain completed TSV rows or offline queue status.
Read campaign statistics; returns completed TSV rows or safe offline queue status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_to | Yes | ||
| date_from | Yes | ||
| field_names | No | ||
| report_type | No | CUSTOM_REPORT | |
| campaign_ids | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state this is a read operation and reveals the non-error queue status behavior when results are not ready. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, and when the offline path is triggered.
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?
The description is one compact sentence with the core action front-loaded. It avoids padding, though the phrase 'safe offline queue status' is slightly awkward and less clear than the rest.
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?
Given five parameters, no annotations, and a likely asynchronous result flow, the description is too thin to support correct invocation. It omits the required date range, report type, campaign filtering, and polling behavior, leaving those details to the schema and agent inference.
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%, and the description adds no meaning to date_from, date_to, field_names, report_type, or campaign_ids. The agent must rely entirely on the schema for parameter semantics, as the description does not compensate for its low coverage.
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?
The description states a specific action and resource: 'Read campaign statistics', and clarifies the two possible result forms: completed TSV rows or offline queue status. This is clear but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like direct_get_campaign or metrika_get_statistics by naming them.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as direct_get_inventory or metrika_get_statistics. The mention of queue status vaguely implies an asynchronous workflow, but the conditions for choosing this tool or waiting for results are left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.