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

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_checklist

Retrieve checklist items for any Yandex Tracker issue by providing its issue key. Get a text or JSON response.

Instructions

List checklist items of an issue.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_checklist"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full transparency burden. It only states the action, without disclosing behavioral details like default output format, whether all items are returned, or any ordering. The verb 'List' implies read-only but adds no depth.

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, direct sentence of seven words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no redundant information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple and the description captures the core purpose. Since an output schema exists and parameters are documented, the description need not explain return details. It lacks only usage guidance, but for a straightforward list operation it is adequately complete.

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 input schema (issue_key with an example, output_format with default and allowed values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline for schema coverage of 100%.

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 'List checklist items of an issue' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add/update/delete_checklist_item by focusing purely on listing items for an issue.

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 context about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_entity_checklist_items or other listing tools. It does not mention any exclusions or specific use cases beyond the basic action.

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