tracker_components_user_permissions_getRetrieve a user's permissions on a Yandex 360 Tracker component, including allowed actions (create, read, write, deny) and who granted them.
What one user may do on a component (create, read, write, deny) and who grants it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_id | Yes | Login or numeric uid of the user. | |
| component_id | Yes | Numeric id of the component. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.67.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by specifying the permission types returned and that the response includes the granting source.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the core purpose and the key return content without padding.
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 simple read operation with complete parameter documentation and annotations covering safety, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the returned rights and grantor, though it could be slightly richer about the response shape since no output schema exists.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both required parameters (user_id and component_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema already does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the resource and scope: a single user's permissions on a Tracker component, listing the possible rights (create, read, write, deny) and noting it returns who granted them. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling group-permissions tool by specifying 'one user,' though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 by the phrasing 'What one user may do on a component,' which tells the agent this is the single-user permission lookup rather than the group variant. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.