Fetch retargeting and audience-selection lists from Yandex Direct to inspect IDs, types, names, and availability. Supports optional IDs, limit, and offset for read-only reporting.
Retargeting and audience-selection lists (Id, Type, Name, IsAvailable). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' adds no new behavioral information. The description discloses no pagination behavior despite limit/offset parameters, and the field list it provides is return-shape detail rather than operational context.
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?
It is a single compact sentence plus a fragment, with the resource named first and no wasted words. The brevity is appropriate even if the content is thin.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with three undocumented parameters (including paging controls) and no usage context, the definition leaves an agent guessing how to call it correctly. For a read-only list tool with defaults of limit=500 and offset=0, more guidance is warranted.
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 three parameters (ids, limit, offset), and the description never mentions any of them. The listed fields (Id, Type, Name, IsAvailable) describe output entities, not the input parameters, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 names a specific resource (retargeting and audience-selection lists) and its returned fields, so an agent can tell it apart from unrelated list tools such as direct_list_creatives. However, it never explicitly names a verb and offers no differentiation from close siblings like direct_list_audience_targets or audience_list_segments.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternative tools for overlapping list needs. The agent must infer usage context purely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.