tracker_queues_group_permissions_getGet the permissions a group has in a Yandex Tracker queue, including whether they can create, read, write, grant, or deny access.
What one group may do in a queue (create, read, write, grant, deny).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | Numeric id of the group. | |
| queue_id | Yes | Queue key (case-sensitive, e.g. TEST) or numeric queue id. |
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 only the permission-set enumeration, which is closer to return content than behavior; it says nothing about auth requirements or what permissions look like when unset.
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?
One tight sentence with no filler, and the scope statement is front-loaded. It is possibly too terse to route the agent, but nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter read-only get with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description plus annotations supply what the agent needs to call it. The main omission is distinguishing it from the user-permissions sibling.
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%: both queue_id (key or numeric id) and group_id (numeric) are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline 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?
States a specific resource and scope: it returns what one group may do in a queue, and enumerates the permission dimensions (create, read, write, grant, deny). The verb is implicit rather than stated ('Get a group's rights'), and the group-vs-user sibling distinction is carried by the name rather than the text.
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_user_permissions_get or tracker_queues_set_permissions. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for inspecting group-level queue permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.