List read-only SmartAdTargets for Yandex Direct smart banners, filtered by campaign, ad group, or target IDs. Use it to retrieve feed filters for specific campaigns or groups.
Smart-banner feed filters (SmartAdTargets) by campaign/group/id. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| ad_group_ids | No | ||
| campaign_ids | 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint, and the description's 'Read-only' simply restates that. It says nothing extra about pagination behavior, how filters combine, limits on the id arrays, or dataset size — the kind of context that would add value beyond structured fields.
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?
Two compact sentences, resource and filter axes front-loaded with no padding. The trailing 'Read-only' sentence is redundant with the annotations, a small waste.
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?
For a 5-parameter, fully undocumented schema, the description should clarify filter combination rules and pagination expectations. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the query-construction gaps leave an agent guessing how to build a correct call.
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% for 5 parameters. The description maps 'campaign/group/id' to campaign_ids, ad_group_ids and ids, but omits limit and offset entirely and gives no semantics for the array filters (combined with AND? mutually exclusive? empty means no filter?). Partial compensation only.
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?
Names the resource precisely (SmartAdTargets / smart-banner feed filters) and the dimensions it filters on (campaign/group/id), so an agent can tell it apart from the adjacent direct_list_dynamic_feed_ad_targets. It relies on the tool name for the verb rather than stating 'list' explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no explicit routing to or away from the dynamic-feed or audience-target siblings. 'Read-only' hints at safe retrieval but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.