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

ya-tracker-mcp

by imdeniil
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

update_macro

Update an existing Yandex Tracker macro by providing its queue and ID, and modify its name, body, or issue update fields.

Instructions

Update a macro.

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>",
      "macro_id": "<macro_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_macro"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoMacro body
nameYesMacro name
queueYesQueue key
macro_idYesMacro ID
issue_updateNoFields to update

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.8.2

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Update a macro' reveals no details about side effects, partial updates, overwrite behavior, required permissions, or error conditions. It is essentially tautological.

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 extremely terse and front-loaded with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. While there is no fluff, the lack of substantive content makes it less than ideal; one sentence with no context is not 'appropriately sized.'

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool has five parameters, an output schema, and many sibling operations, yet the description provides no context about update semantics, which fields are updatable, whether the body is optional, or how it relates to other macro tools. This is grossly inadequate for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and descriptions, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('a macro'), making the core function identifiable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like create_macro or delete_macro, which also operate on macros.

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. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as the macro needing to already exist, nor does it contrast with create_macro or delete_macro.

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