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

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_autoaction_logs

Retrieve execution logs for a specific autoaction in a Yandex Tracker queue, providing details on its runs by queue key and autoaction ID.

Instructions

Get autoaction execution logs.

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>",
      "autoaction_id": "<autoaction_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_autoaction_logs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queueYesQueue key
autoaction_idYesAutoaction ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.2

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation (though it's implied), nor does it describe any behavioral traits such as pagination, filtering, or return format. The description adds little beyond the tool name.

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 with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has minimal complexity, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, the description lacks any note about how autoaction logs relate to similar tools like get_trigger_logs, so an agent might not know which log type to query.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema ('Queue key' and 'Autoaction ID'), providing complete coverage. The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameters, so it relies on the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Get autoaction execution logs' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like get_autoaction or list_autoactions. However, it doesn't elaborate on what constitutes execution logs, so it's clear but not highly detailed.

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 like get_trigger_logs. The description simply states the function without any context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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