A1 Yandex KIT MCP

List gift cards

list_gift_cards

Read-only

Retrieve store gift cards with pagination, status filter, and purchase-date range. Response includes a coverage envelope; if coverage is partial, do not claim the listing is complete.

Instructions

List gift cards of the store (paginated), with optional status and purchase-date filters. The response carries a machine-readable coverage envelope (coverage, received, total_count, pages_read); coverage:"partial" MUST be reflected in the user-facing answer and forbids claiming the listing is complete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`all`	No	Fetch all pages via auto-pagination, up to 500 items; ignores page/per_page.
`page`	No	Page number, starting at 1 (default 1).
`fields`	No	CSV columns; only valid together with format:"csv". Field names are validated against the item schema of the operation's response — an unknown name fails with the list of allowed fields. Default: every top-level scalar field of the item.
`format`	No	Output format: "csv" renders the items as RFC 4180 CSV (a leading "# coverage:" comment line, then the header row) instead of JSON — cheaper for wide exports. Default: JSON.
`redact`	No	Use redact:true when the task does not need personal data (e.g. counting or aggregating orders) — personal fields (name, phone, email, date of birth, delivery address and its parts, notes) are replaced with "[redacted]". Applies to the response only; request bodies are never redacted. Default false.
`status`	No	Filter by gift card status.
`per_page`	No	Items per page, 1-100 (default 25). Values outside the range are clamped.
`purchased_date_to`	No	Filter by purchase date: end of the range, inclusive (ISO 8601).
`purchased_date_from`	No	Filter by purchase date: start of the range, inclusive (ISO 8601).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.8.0Oct 7, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / redact / description

Previous value: -"Use redact:true when the task does not need personal data (e.g. counting or aggregating orders) — personal fields (name, phone, email, delivery address and its parts, notes) are replaced with \"[redacted]\". Applies to the response only; request bodies are never redacted. Default false."New value: +"Use redact:true when the task does not need personal data (e.g. counting or aggregating orders) — personal fields (name, phone, email, date of birth, delivery address and its parts, notes) are replaced with \"[redacted]\". Applies to the response only; request bodies are never redacted. Default false."

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.6.0Sep 8, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / fields

Added value: +{
+  "description": "CSV columns; only valid together with format:\"csv\". Field names are validated against the item schema of the operation's response — an unknown name fails with the list of allowed fields. Default: every top-level scalar field of the item.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "minItems": 1,
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / format

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Output format: \"csv\" renders the items as RFC 4180 CSV (a leading \"# coverage:\" comment line, then the header row) instead of JSON — cheaper for wide exports. Default: JSON.",
+  "enum": [
+    "csv"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / redact

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Use redact:true when the task does not need personal data (e.g. counting or aggregating orders) — personal fields (name, phone, email, delivery address and its parts, notes) are replaced with \"[redacted]\". Applies to the response only; request bodies are never redacted. Default false.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv1.3.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest, and it does add real behavioral value: it discloses the machine-readable coverage envelope (coverage, received, total_count, pages_read) and, critically, the obligation that coverage:"partial" MUST be surfaced and forbids claiming completeness. That is a substantive constraint beyond the annotations, though return shape outside the envelope is still unspecified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly-scoped sentences: the purpose and filters lead, and the coverage-envelope caveat follows. Every clause earns its place, and nothing is repeated from the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the coverage envelope and the partial-coverage reporting rule, and the 100%-covered schema handles the rest. It omits any note on the all/auto-pagination path or redact interaction, but these are documented in the schema, so the definition is nearly complete for a 9-param list tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters (all, page, per_page, fields, format, redact, status, purchased_date_from/to). The description only echoes the status and date filters and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List gift cards of the store') plus the pagination scope and available filters, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the singular get_gift_card sibling, so it stops 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description names filterable dimensions (status, purchase date) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never points to the singular get_gift_card sibling or explains when auto-pagination (all) is preferable. Usage must be fully inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

List gift cards

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools