get_issue_typesRetrieve all issue types configured in Yandex Tracker. Use this list to populate dropdowns or validate inputs when creating or updating issues.
Get all issue types available in Yandex Tracker that can be used when creating or updating issues
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool retrieves all issue types for create/update operations, but it does not disclose return format, sorting, or edge cases. Since the schema and output schema provide structural details, the description offers modest additional transparency.
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 sentence that immediately states the action and resource, with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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 zero parameters, a readOnly annotation, and an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and when it is relevant. It explains the data's usage context, making it complete for an agent to decide when to call this tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100% for an empty properties object. Per rubric, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline of 4. The description adds context about the returned data's purpose but there are no parameter semantics to elaborate on.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'all issue types available in Yandex Tracker'. It further explains the purpose ('can be used when creating or updating issues'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_statuses or get_priorities.
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 states the context for use ('when creating or updating issues'), which implies when to call this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.