tracker_projects_getRetrieve a Yandex Tracker project's name, lead, stage, dates, and edit version by numeric project ID. Use the returned version to safely update that project.
One project: name, lead, stage, dates and version (needed to edit it).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expand | No | Extra blocks to include, e.g. ``queues``. | |
| project_id | Yes | Numeric id of the project, from ``projects_list``. |
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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note – that the returned ``version`` is required to edit the project – but says nothing about error behavior for a missing id or access 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the key value (the ``version`` field needed for edits) is included rather than padded. It reads as a terse fragment rather than a full sentence, which slightly limits readability.
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?
With no output schema, the description does the work of listing the returned fields, which is appropriate for a simple single-record get. Remaining gaps (error cases, what ``expand`` adds) are minor for a read-only two-parameter tool.
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% (both project_id and expand are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail for either parameter and does not mention what ``expand`` (e.g. ``queues``) actually does.
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 specifies the resource (a single project) and enumerates the returned fields (name, lead, stage, dates, version), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tracker_projects_list. It never states the verb 'get' explicitly, but 'One project' makes the singular-retrieval intent clear.
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 only implied: 'One project' signals fetching a single record by id, and the parenthetical '(needed to edit it)' hints at a fetch-before-update workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite for permissions, and no mention of the tracker_projects_list alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.