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

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_triggers

Get all triggers for a Yandex Tracker queue by passing the queue key, enabling review of automation rules.

Instructions

List triggers of a queue.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_triggers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queueYesQueue key (e.g. "DEV")

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and provides no details about the nature of the operation (e.g., read-only, permissions required, pagination, whether inactive triggers are included). This is a significant gap for a list operation.

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 filler words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one parameter, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Although the tool is simple and has an output schema (which presumably documents the return structure), the description lacks any contextual guidance on behavior, permissions, or edge cases. It is minimally sufficient but leaves clear gaps, such as what constitutes a 'trigger' in this context and any operational constraints.

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 input schema already provides full coverage for the single parameter 'queue' with a clear example. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 triggers of a queue' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from related siblings like get_trigger (single trigger) and create_trigger/update_trigger. It unambiguously states its function without ambiguity.

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 (when you need to list triggers for a queue) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks direct exclusions or references to sibling tools, so it only meets the 'implied usage' criterion.

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