issue_get_urlResolve a Yandex Tracker issue ID to its direct URL for quick access or sharing.
Get a Yandex Tracker issue url by its id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue_id | Yes | Issue ID in the format '<project>-<id>', like 'SOMEPROJECT-1' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as behavior when the issue ID does not exist, whether the URL is absolute, or if any special permissions are required. The description is essentially a restatement of the tool's name, providing no extra transparency value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no superfluous words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema and a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is sufficiently complete. It clearly states what the tool does, and the schema documents the parameter. The presence of the output schema covers return value details, so no further elaboration is necessary.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, including its description with format example ('SOMEPROJECT-1'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (Get), names the resource (Yandex Tracker issue url), and specifies the input method (by its id). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like issue_get (which likely returns full issue details) and other getter tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an issue URL is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.