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

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_macro

Delete a macro from an issue queue by specifying the queue key and macro ID.

Instructions

Delete a macro from 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": "<queue>",
      "macro_id": "<macro_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_macro"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queueYesQueue key
macro_idYesMacro ID

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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies destruction, the description does not state whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to associated data, or what happens if the macro does not exist. The added context 'from a queue' clarifies scope but not side effects.

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, concise sentence that is immediately understandable. Every word earns its place; no verbose or redundant content. This is an example of efficient, front-loaded prose.

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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema details, the description is insufficient. It fails to mention that deletion is permanent, whether confirmation is required, or the outcome of deleting a nonexistent macro. The tool is simple, but the missing behavioral details leave a material gap for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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%—both parameters ('queue' and 'macro_id') are individually described. The description adds no extra semantics beyond restating that the macro is deleted from a queue. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter explanation.

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 ('Delete') and identifies the resource ('a macro') plus the scope ('from a queue'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_macro, create_macro, and update_macro. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states the action without mentioning any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent must infer from the name and context alone.

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