Skip to main content
Glama
aikts

Yandex Tracker MCP

get_statuses

Retrieve all available statuses in Yandex Tracker for managing issues, enabling effective issue tracking and workflow management within the platform.

Instructions

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the MCP tool 'get_statuses'. It is decorated with @mcp.tool decorator and delegates the request to the fields client instance available in the request context.
        description="Get all statuses available in Yandex Tracker that can be used in issues"
    )
    async def get_statuses(
        ctx: Context[Any, AppContext],
    ) -> list[Status]:
        statuses = await ctx.request_context.lifespan_context.fields.get_statuses(
            auth=get_yandex_auth(ctx),
        )
        return statuses
  • The registration of the MCP server and tools. The register_tools function is called here, which defines and registers the 'get_statuses' tool using the @mcp.tool decorator.
    mcp = create_mcp_server()
    register_resources(settings, mcp)
    register_tools(settings, mcp)
  • The core implementation of get_statuses in the TrackerClient, which makes an HTTP GET request to the Yandex Tracker API endpoint '/v3/statuses' and parses the response using StatusList pydantic model.
    async def get_statuses(self, *, auth: YandexAuth | None = None) -> list[Status]:
        async with self._session.get(
            "v3/statuses", headers=await self._build_headers(auth)
        ) as response:
            response.raise_for_status()
            return StatusList.model_validate_json(await response.read()).root
  • Protocol definition for GlobalDataProtocol specifying the get_statuses method signature.
    async def get_statuses(self, *, auth: YandexAuth | None = None) -> list[Status]: ...
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves statuses but doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and sibling tools present, it lacks context on behavioral traits and usage differentiation. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more guidance would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it correctly implies no inputs are required by not mentioning any. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all statuses available in Yandex Tracker'), specifying they are for use in issues. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issue_types' or 'get_priorities' which are similar metadata retrieval functions, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'issue_get' or 'issues_find', leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/aikts/yandex-tracker-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server