tracker_links_listList every link on a Yandex Tracker issue by issue key, showing the linked issue, relationship type, and direction.
All links on a Tracker issue (linked issues, type, direction).
| 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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned fields (linked issues, type, direction), but omits pagination, result limits, or auth requirements.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the resource. No wasted words, though it is a fragment rather than a full sentence and could include an explicit verb.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the description gives enough to call it and states return content. It remains incomplete because it does not mention the filtered sibling or pagination behavior.
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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter issue_key is fully documented in the schema. The description implies the issue key requirement but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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 resource and scope: it returns links on a Tracker issue, including linked issues, type, and direction. However, it omits an explicit list verb and does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as tracker_links_list_filtered or tracker_entities_links_list.
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 and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the unfiltered list operation, which is especially risky given the sibling tracker_links_list_filtered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.