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

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

delete_worklog

Delete a worklog entry from a Yandex Tracker issue using its issue key and worklog ID.

Instructions

Delete a worklog entry.

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>",
      "worklog_id": "<worklog_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_worklog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_keyYesIssue key (e.g. "DEV-123")
worklog_idYesWorklog entry ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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. It merely states the action 'Delete' without mentioning irreversibility, permission requirements, or consequences of failure. The destructive nature is implied by the verb but not elaborated, so transparency is minimal.

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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It contains no redundant or wasted words, making it highly concise. While it is brief, it earns its place for such a straightforward operation.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is minimally viable given the low complexity and complete schema. However, for a destructive operation, it would benefit from noting that the deletion is permanent or that appropriate permissions are required. The output schema covers return details, but behavioral context is lacking.

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%, with both parameters (issue_key and worklog_id) clearly described. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies per the rubric.

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 "Delete a worklog entry." uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (worklog entry), clearly distinguishing it from sibling worklog tools like add_worklog, update_worklog, and list_worklog. It is concise and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for removing a specific logged time entry, nor does it contrast with update_worklog or search_worklog. Given the sibling context, explicit usage direction is lacking.

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