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

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

entity_changelog

Retrieve the changelog for any project, portfolio, or goal. Provide the entity type and ID to get a paginated, formatted history of changes.

Instructions

Get changelog of a project, portfolio, or goal.

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": {
      "entity_type": "<entity_type>",
      "entity_id": "<entity_id>"
    },
    "name": "entity_changelog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
per_pageNoResults per page
entity_idYesEntity ID
entity_typeYes"project", "portfolio", or "goal"
output_formatNoResponse format: "text" (default, markdown) or "json"text

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.2

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get changelog' without revealing read-only nature, pagination behavior, output format details, or content of changelog entries.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the action verb and immediately specifies the target resource.

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 output schema and full parameter documentation make the description minimally adequate, but the lack of behavioral context (e.g., read-only, pagination) and absence of usage differentiation leave gaps. Given no annotations, more detail would be expected.

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 tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond mentioning the entity types already described in the schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('changelog of a project, portfolio, or goal'), clearly stating the tool's scope. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'issue_changelog' by naming non-issue entity types.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for project/portfolio/goal changelogs but does not explicitly contrast with 'issue_changelog' or other tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance 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