Skip to main content
Glama
aikts

Yandex Tracker MCP

user_get

Retrieve detailed information about a specific user in Yandex Tracker by providing their login or UID. Simplify user data access for accurate issue management and tracking.

Instructions

Get information about a specific user by login or UID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYesUser identifier - can be user login (e.g., 'john.doe') or user UID (e.g., '12345')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uidYes
emailNo
loginYes
displayNo
externalNo
lastNameNo
dismissedNo
firstNameNo

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the MCP 'user_get' tool. It retrieves user information by user_id using the tracker client, with error handling if user not found.
    @mcp.tool(description="Get information about a specific user by login or UID")
    async def user_get(
        ctx: Context[Any, AppContext],
        user_id: UserID,
    ) -> User:
        user = await ctx.request_context.lifespan_context.users.user_get(
            user_id,
            auth=get_yandex_auth(ctx),
        )
        if user is None:
            raise TrackerError(f"User `{user_id}` not found.")
    
        return user
  • Pydantic schema definition for the 'user_id' input parameter of the user_get tool.
    UserID = Annotated[
        str,
        Field(
            description="User identifier - can be user login (e.g., 'john.doe') or user UID (e.g., '12345')"
        ),
    ]
  • Location where register_tools is called, which defines and registers the user_get tool via @mcp.tool decorator.
    register_tools(settings, mcp)
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 this is a read operation ('Get information'), which is clear, but it doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what specific information is returned. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 any unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy 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 that there is an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and simple parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on when to use this versus sibling tools and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding. A score of 3 reflects this as the minimum viable level.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'user_id' fully documented in the schema as accepting login or UID. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, merely restating the parameter's purpose. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 information') and resource ('about a specific user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'user_get_current' or 'users_get_all', which also retrieve user information but with different scopes or parameters.

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 like 'user_get_current' (for current user) or 'users_get_all' (for all users). It mentions the input parameter accepts login or UID, but this is redundant with the schema and doesn't help the agent choose between sibling tools.

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