Skip to main content
Glama
aikts

Yandex Tracker MCP

by aikts
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

issue_get_comments

Retrieve comments for a specific issue in Yandex Tracker by providing the issue ID in the format '-'.

Instructions

Get comments of a Yandex Tracker issue by its id

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_idYesIssue ID in the format '<project>-<id>', like 'SOMEPROJECT-1'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • mcp_tracker/mcp/tools.py:232-242 (handler)
    MCP tool handler implementation for 'issue_get_comments'. Validates the issue ID using check_issue_id and fetches comments via the injected issues service.
    async def issue_get_comments(
    ctx: Context[Any, AppContext],
    issue_id: IssueID,
) -> list[IssueComment]:
    check_issue_id(settings, issue_id)

    return await ctx.request_context.lifespan_context.issues.issue_get_comments(
        issue_id,
        auth=get_yandex_auth(ctx),
    )
  • mcp_tracker/mcp/params.py:23-26 (schema)
    Input schema definition for the 'issue_id' parameter using Pydantic Annotated type with description and validation.
    IssueID = Annotated[
    str,
    Field(description="Issue ID in the format '<project>-<id>', like 'SOMEPROJECT-1'"),
]
  • mcp_tracker/mcp/server.py:164-166 (registration)
    Calls register_tools which defines and registers the 'issue_get_comments' tool (along with others) on the FastMCP server instance.
    mcp = create_mcp_server()
register_resources(settings, mcp)
register_tools(settings, mcp)

Tool Definition Quality

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get comments' but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it returns all comments or paginated results, the format of returned comments (e.g., text, author, timestamps), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Get comments') and specifies the resource and identifier. There is zero waste, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 has an output schema (which should define return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and a simple parameter (1 param, 100% schema coverage), the description is minimally adequate but lacks behavioral context like pagination or error handling. It meets basic needs but could be more complete for a read operation in a collaborative system.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting the single parameter 'issue_id' with its format. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of valid issue IDs or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the resource 'comments of a Yandex Tracker issue', specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like 'issue_get' (which gets the issue itself) and 'issue_get_attachments' (which gets attachments), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 (e.g., needing an issue ID), exclusions, or compare it to similar tools like 'issue_get' (which might include comments) or 'issues_find' (which might filter issues with comments). Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.

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