Yandex Tracker MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update Issue Comment

issue_update_comment

Update an existing comment in a Yandex Tracker issue by providing new text and optionally summoning users or mailing lists to notify them. Supports markdown for rich formatting.

Instructions

Update an existing comment in a Yandex Tracker issue. To mention or call people, use summonees, not '@login' in the text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	New comment text (markdown supported by Tracker).
`issue_id`	Yes	Issue ID in the format '<project>-<id>', like 'SOMEPROJECT-1'
`summonees`	No	Users to summon (logins or IDs): they are invited to the discussion and notified. This is the API way to 'mention/call' someone in a Yandex Tracker comment.
`comment_id`	Yes	Comment ID (integer).
`markup_type`	No	Optional markup type for comment text. Use 'md' for YFM (markdown).
`maillist_summonees`	No	Optional list of mailing lists to summon (emails). Example: ['team@example.com'].

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`text`	No
`longId`	No
`textHtml`	No
`createdAt`	No
`createdBy`	No
`summonees`	No
`transport`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`updatedBy`	No
`maillistSummonees`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.0Sep 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / summonees / description

Previous value: -"Optional list of summoned users (logins or IDs). These users will be invited to the discussion and receive notifications."New value: +"Users to summon (logins or IDs): they are invited to the discussion and notified. This is the API way to 'mention/call' someone in a Yandex Tracker comment."

Addedv0.6.3May 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations only mark readOnlyHint as false, so the description carries some burden for behavioral context. It adds a useful API-specific behavior: mentions/calls should use summonees rather than @login in the text. However, it does not disclose details like whether the update overwrites the entire comment, permission requirements, or side effects.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence clearly states the operation, and the second adds a high-value usage caveat that prevents a common mistake.

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?

With six parameters, three required, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description does not need to repeat parameter details. It covers the core purpose and a key behavioral nuance, making it sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It could be more explicit about alternative tools, but that is already addressed in usage guidelines.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by clarifying that the text field should not contain '@login' for mentions/calls and that summonees is the intended mechanism, adding meaningful semantic guidance for the text and summonees parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing comment in a Yandex Tracker issue.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like issue_add_comment and issue_delete_comment by emphasizing 'existing comment.'

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 implies the tool is for editing existing comments rather than creating or deleting them, giving clear context. It also provides a concrete usage rule for mentioning people ('use summonees, not @login'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server