Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ya-tracker-mcp

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

add_checklist_item

Add a checklist item to a Yandex Tracker issue by providing the issue key and item text, with optional assignee or deadline.

Instructions

Add a checklist item to an issue.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issue_key": "<issue_key>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "add_checklist_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesItem text
checkedNoWhether item is checked
assigneeNoAssignee login
deadlineNoDeadline date (YYYY-MM-DD)
issue_keyYesIssue key (e.g. "DEV-123")

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and fails to mention effects (e.g., whether a checklist is auto-created), error conditions, or any state changes beyond adding an item.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and immediately states the tool's purpose, making it highly concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description lacks usage context and behavioral caveats. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this minimal description is insufficient for an agent to understand when to use it or what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter detail, but the schema already documents each parameter clearly (text, checked, assignee, deadline, issue_key). No additional semantics are needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Add a checklist item to an issue' clearly states the specific verb (Add), resource (checklist item), and target (issue). It is distinct from sibling tools like add_entity_checklist_item (which targets entities) and update/delete/list checklist operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_entity_checklist_item). There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. Usage is only implied by the name, not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools