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

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_worklog

Retrieve worklog entries for an issue by providing its key. Choose text or JSON output and optionally select specific fields.

Instructions

List worklog entries for 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_worklog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoOptional list of fields to show.
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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states 'List worklog entries' without disclosing behavior such as pagination, default field selection, or performance characteristics. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit, and potential side effects are not addressed.

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, compact sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, achieving maximum conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having an output schema and three parameters, the description is too sparse to be fully contextual. It omits details about result limiting, default field behavior, and its relationship to search_worklog, leaving the agent without a complete picture.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for issue_key, fields, and output_format. The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond the literal list action, warranting the baseline score for full 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 clearly specifies the action ('List') and the resource ('worklog entries for an issue'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes from mutation siblings like add_worklog/update_worklog, as well as broader search_worklog.

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 search_worklog or other list tools. There are no stated alternatives, exclusions, or contextual hints about when this is the appropriate choice.

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