Yandex Tracker MCP Server

Get Statuses

get_statuses

Read-only

Retrieve the complete list of issue statuses in Yandex Tracker to use when creating or updating issues.

Instructions

Get all statuses available in Yandex Tracker that can be used in issues

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_statuses"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.2Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds a contextual detail that only statuses usable in issues are returned, which is mildly informative. It does not describe pagination, return format, or other behavioral traits, but the output schema fills some gaps.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Get all statuses') and provides necessary qualifying context without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple, parameterless, read-only tool with an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns. The context of 'available in Yandex Tracker' and 'usable in issues' is sufficient for the agent to use it correctly, and the output schema covers return structure.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With zero parameters, the schema is empty and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain any parameters. It appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it gets all statuses available in Yandex Tracker that are usable in issues, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling reference-data tools by naming the exact entity (statuses) and scoping to issue-usable statuses.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_issue_types or get_resolutions. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools.

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

Deploy Server