Create, update, or delete Yandex Metrika goals automatically with idempotent operations and readback verification.
Autonomously create, update or delete a Metrika goal (idempotent, readback).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No | ||
| goal_id | No | ||
| operation | Yes | ||
| counter_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | 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?
It discloses key behavioral traits: 'idempotent' (safe to retry) and 'readback' (returns the updated state). This goes beyond a simple action statement. However, it does not mention potential destructive effects of delete or error behavior, but given no annotations, this is reasonable.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds concise qualifiers. It is appropriately sized and contains no redundant words.
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 the tool has five parameters and two required fields, the description omits any explanation of how to specify create versus update versus delete, what 'params' contains, or what 'idempotency_key' does. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the parameter semantics gap makes the description incomplete for correct invocation.
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 names none of the five parameters (operation, counter_id, goal_id, params, idempotency_key). With no guidance on what these mean or how they relate, an agent cannot infer parameter usage from the description alone.
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 clearly states the action ('create, update or delete') and the resource ('Metrika goal'), and 'Autonomously' and 'idempotent' differentiate it from read-only tools like metrika_list_goals. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools.
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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not say 'use this to modify goals, not to list them' or mention any prerequisites. The phrase 'Autonomously' hints at its purpose but is not explicit enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.