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

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_component

Modify an existing Yandex Tracker component's name, description, lead, or auto-assignment using its component ID.

Instructions

Update an existing component.

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": {
      "component_id": "<component_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_component"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
leadNoNew lead login
nameNoNew component name
assign_autoNoAuto-assign issues to lead
descriptionNoNew description
component_idYesComponent ID

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update an existing component' without explaining whether updates are partial, destructive, require permissions, or have side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 wasted words. While extremely brief, it effectively conveys the core purpose without verbosity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description lacks essential context about partial updates, effects, or safety. The output schema exists and parameters are documented, but behavioral context is missing, leaving the description incomplete.

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 fully describes all five parameters with individual descriptions, so the tool description adds no extra meaning. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage (100%).

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 clearly states the operation ('Update') and the target resource ('existing component'), which distinguishes it from create_component and get_component. However, it doesn't elaborate on what aspects can be updated, making it slightly less informative than ideal.

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 alternatives like create_component or get_component. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context indicating appropriate scenarios for use.

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