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

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_external_applications

List external applications that are registered for linking issues, giving a clear overview of available integrations.

Instructions

List external applications registered for issue linking.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_external_applications"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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, and the description is a bare listing statement. It discloses no side effects (e.g., being read-only), data scope, permission requirements, or return format details beyond the output_format parameter. With no annotation support, the description fails to convey important behavioral context.

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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and contains zero filler or redundant phrasing. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing tool.

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, has an output schema, and the only parameter is fully described in the schema, so the description need not explain return values. The phrase 'registered for issue linking' adds useful context. However, the lack of annotations and absence of any extra usage context mean a small gap remains, but for a list operation the description is largely sufficient.

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?

The only parameter, output_format, is fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra semantics about parameter usage, but the schema already handles it adequately, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description specifies 'List external applications registered for issue linking' – a clear verb ('List') and resource ('external applications') with purpose qualifier. This distinguishes it from sibling list_external_links, which focuses on links themselves rather than registered applications.

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 usage guidance or mention of alternatives is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool instead of list_external_links or other listing tools, leaving the agent to infer its context.

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