tracker_projects_queues_listList all queues assigned to a Yandex Tracker project, so you can find where issues are tracked. Pass project_id; optionally expand queue blocks.
The queues whose issues belong to a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expand | No | Extra queue blocks, e.g. ``all`` or ``components,versions``. | |
| project_id | Yes | Numeric id of the project, from ``projects_list``. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Does 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 nothing else: no ordering, no pagination, no note about what queue fields come back or whether expand changes the shape.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, but it is a noun fragment rather than a sentence and carries almost no information, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description should say at least what a returned queue looks like or how it relates to the global queues list. Reporting a project's queues versus all queues is left ambiguous.
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 both parameters (project_id, expand) are fully described in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description 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?
The fragment identifies the resource and the scoping relationship (queues whose issues belong to a project), which slightly exceeds the title. But it has no verb and no distinguishing detail against the sibling tracker_queues_list, so an agent cannot tell the two apart from text alone.
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 the obvious alternative, tracker_queues_list, which appears in the sibling list. The agent gets no cue for selecting this project-scoped variant over the global one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.