tracker_issues_getFetch a single Yandex Tracker issue by its key, optionally choosing which fields or extra blocks to include in the response.
A single Tracker issue by key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expand | No | Extra blocks to include in the reply. | |
| fields | No | Comma-separated fields to include in the reply. | |
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that, e.g. no note about the meaning of expand/fields expansion or permission requirements for fetching an issue.
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?
Extremely short with zero waste, but it is closer to a label than a sentence and omits detail that would help an agent invoke it correctly.
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 retrieval tool with no output schema and three parameters, the description should at least hint at what is returned and how issue keys are scoped. It leaves everything except the key concept to the schema and annotations.
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 issue_key, expand and fields are each documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 fragment names the resource (a single Tracker issue) and the lookup key, distinguishing it loosely from tracker_issues_list. But it has no verb and no explicit differentiation from retrieval siblings like tracker_entities_get, so an agent must infer the operation.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as tracker_issues_list or tracker_entities_get. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.