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

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_filter

Update an existing Yandex Tracker filter by changing its name, query, or filter dictionary. Provide the filter ID to modify specific saved criteria.

Instructions

Update a saved filter.

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": {
      "filter_id": "<filter_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_filter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew filter name
queryNoNew query string
filterNoNew filter dict
filter_idYesFilter ID

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.2

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must explain behavior on its own. It merely restates the operation ('Update') without disclosing partial-update semantics, required permissions, error behavior, or response details.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise at one sentence, but it largely restates the tool name without adding substance. It's not wasteful, but it doesn't fully earn its place by providing additional information.

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 is incomplete. It doesn't clarify how updates behave (e.g., whether omitted fields are preserved) or what the response includes, leaving the agent to infer critical details.

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 parameters with descriptions (e.g., 'New filter name', 'New query string'), so the schema carries meaning. The description adds no parameter-level context, meeting the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 identifies the tool's action and target ('Update a saved filter'). It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like create_filter or get_filter beyond the verb, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 for when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention when to update versus create or get a filter, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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