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

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_queue_version

Create a new version in a Yandex Tracker queue. Specify the queue key, version name, optional start/due dates, and description.

Instructions

Create a new version for a queue.

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": {
      "queue_key": "<queue_key>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_queue_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesVersion name
due_dateNoDue date (YYYY-MM-DD)
queue_keyYesQueue key
start_dateNoStart date (YYYY-MM-DD)
descriptionNoVersion description

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?

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states 'Create a new version' without mentioning side effects, permissions, whether versions are immutable, or how the version state is managed. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

A single, focused sentence directly conveys the operation with no filler or redundancy. It is well-front-loaded and easy to parse.

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, the description is too sparse for a create operation requiring a queue_key and multiple optional parameters. It gives no context about queue relationships, constraints, or invocation semantics, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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?

The input schema documents all 5 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema info.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and clear resource ('a new version for a queue'), distinguishing it from related tools like create_queue or list_queue_versions. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_queue or list_queue_versions. No context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when to avoid using it is provided.

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