Yandex Tracker MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Move Issue to Another Queue

issue_move

Move a Yandex Tracker issue to another queue to reassign it to a different team or workflow, obtaining a new key in the target queue.

Instructions

Move a Yandex Tracker issue to a different queue. The issue will receive a new key in the target queue (e.g., TASKS-1 → NEWQUEUE-42). Returns the updated issue with its new key and queue.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`queue`	Yes	Target queue key (e.g., 'MYQUEUE')
`notify`	No	Whether users referenced in the issue's fields are notified of the change.
`issue_id`	Yes	Issue ID in the format '<project>-<id>', like 'SOMEPROJECT-1'
`notify_author`	No	Whether the issue author is notified of the change.
`initial_status`	No	Whether to reset the issue status to the initial value. Set this to true when moving to a queue with a different workflow.
`move_all_fields`	No	Whether to carry over the issue's versions, components and projects when matching ones exist in the target queue. When false, those fields are cleared.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	No
`epic`	No
`tags`	No
`type`	No
`spent`	No
`start`	No
`votes`	No
`boards`	No	Agile boards the issue shows up on. Tracker fills this in from the boards' own filters - an issue is not assigned to a board directly, so this is read-only. Use the board id with `board_get`, `board_get_columns` or `board_get_sprints`.
`parent`	No
`sprint`	No	Sprints the issue is in. Use `board_get_sprints` to look up the sprints of a board, and pass a sprint id to `issue_update` to move the issue between them.
`status`	No
`unique`	No
`summary`	No
`version`	No
`assignee`	No
`deadline`	No
`priority`	No
`createdAt`	No
`createdBy`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`updatedBy`	No
`components`	No
`estimation`	No
`description`	No
`storyPoints`	No
`previousStatus`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv0.10.0Sep 6, 2026

addedOutput schema / $defs / IssueBoardReference

Added value: +{
+  "description": "A board an issue shows up on, as nested in an issue record.\n\nTracker spells this one differently from its other references: `name`\ninstead of `display`, and a numeric id. That id is what `board_get`,\n`board_get_columns` and `board_get_sprints` take.",
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "description": "Board identifier, as taken by the `board_get`, `board_get_columns` and `board_get_sprints` tools",
+      "title": "Id"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "default": null,
+      "description": "Board name",
+      "title": "Name"
+    }
+  },
+  "title": "IssueBoardReference",
+  "type": "object"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / boards

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "$ref": "#/$defs/IssueBoardReference"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Agile boards the issue shows up on. Tracker fills this in from the boards' own filters - an issue is not assigned to a board directly, so this is read-only. Use the board id with `board_get`, `board_get_columns` or `board_get_sprints`.",
+  "title": "Boards"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / sprint / description

Added value: +"Sprints the issue is in. Use `board_get_sprints` to look up the sprints of a board, and pass a sprint id to `issue_update` to move the issue between them."

Addedv0.7.1May 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the key side effect that the issue receives a new key in the target queue, which is critical and not inferable from annotations alone. It also states that the updated issue is returned. While it doesn't mention potential field clearing or irreversibility, those are partly covered by parameter descriptions, so the added value is solid.

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 sentences contain the core action, a concrete example of the key change, and the return value. Nothing is wasted and the most important consequence is front-loaded.

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?

The description captures the essential consequence (new key) and return shape, and the schema covers the six parameters including nuanced toggles like initial_status and move_all_fields. It is slightly thin on caveats such as old key invalidation or field-clearing defaults, but these are sufficiently implied or documented elsewhere.

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 already describes all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline of 3.

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?

States the specific action 'Move a Yandex Tracker issue to a different queue' with a concrete example of the resulting key change. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like issue_update or issue_execute_transition, which operate within the same queue or on status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context: use this tool when an issue must be relocated to another queue rather than merely updated or transitioned. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which prevents a 5, but the intent is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server