tracker_checklists_clearPermanently delete all checklist items from a Yandex Tracker issue in one call. Use for irreversible removal of the entire checklist; returns the issue without it.
Permanently delete the ENTIRE checklist of a Tracker issue (all items, irreversible).
Returns the issue without its checklist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_key | Yes | Issue key, e.g. QUEUE-123. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Input schema / properties / issue_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Issue key, e.g. QUEUE-123.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / keyRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Issue key, e.g. QUEUE-123.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "key"
-]New value: +[
+ "issue_key"
+]v0.67.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description reinforces this with 'Permanently delete' and 'irreversible', and adds the return behavior ('Returns the issue without its checklist'), but offers no info on permissions, auth scopes, or side effects beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the destructive, whole-checklist scope is front-loaded and the return behavior is a compact second sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers what is destroyed (the entire checklist, irreversibly) and what is returned (the issue without its checklist). The remaining gap is that it never disambiguates against the sibling item-delete tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter (issue_key) and schema description coverage is 100%, with an example format already supplied in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies per the high-coverage rule.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('delete the ENTIRE checklist of a Tracker issue') and emphasizes scope ('all items'), which implicitly separates it from item-level siblings like tracker_checklists_delete or tracker_entities_checklists_items_delete. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the word 'ENTIRE'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'ENTIRE checklist (all items)' framing signals this is the bulk-clear path rather than per-item removal. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many sibling checklist tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.