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

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_checklist_item

Update a checklist item in a Yandex Tracker issue by changing its text, checked status, assignee, or deadline.

Instructions

Update a checklist item.

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>",
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_checklist_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textNoNew text
checkedNoMark as checked/unchecked
item_idYesChecklist item ID (from list_checklist)
assigneeNoNew assignee login
deadlineNoNew deadline (YYYY-MM-DD)
issue_keyYesIssue key (e.g. "DEV-123")

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.2

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does not disclose any side effects, permissions requirements, or confirmation behavior. It only states a generic 'update' action without context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it may be too minimal to convey additional context beyond the tool name.

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 an output schema and a well-covered input schema, so return values and parameter details are already handled elsewhere. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the missing usage context and behavioral details make the description incomplete for an agent deciding when to use it.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, including details like 'New text', 'Mark as checked/unchecked', and 'New assignee login'. The description itself adds no extra parameter context, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics.

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 'Update a checklist item' clearly identifies the action and target resource. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool 'update_entity_checklist_item', so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_checklist_item, delete_checklist_item, or update_entity_checklist_item. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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