tracker_transitions_listList the workflow transitions available for a Yandex Tracker issue by providing its issue key, so you can see which status changes are allowed.
Available workflow transitions for a Tracker issue.
| 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, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the vague word 'available', giving no insight into whether the list is filtered by the issue's current status/workflow, what fields a transition carries, or how it is used downstream.
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 fragment that wastes no words. It is borderline under-specified rather than bloated, but it is efficiently structured.
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 should carry the burden of explaining what a 'transition' result looks like and how the returned identifiers feed into tracker_transitions_execute. Instead it only restates the title, leaving the discovery-to-execution flow undocumented.
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% with a single required issue_key parameter documented as 'Issue key, e.g. QUEUE-123.' The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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?
The description states a specific verb+resource (list available workflow transitions) scoped to a Tracker issue, and the word 'available' implicitly distinguishes it from the write-side sibling tracker_transitions_execute. It is clear on its own, but it never names or contrasts with any sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the natural alternative tracker_transitions_execute or tracker_issues_transition_bulk. An agent must infer on its own that this is the discovery step preceding a transition execution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.