Add a checklist item to a Yandex Tracker issue. Include text, assignee, deadline, and mark it done to track tasks within issues.
Add a checklist item to an issue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Checklist item text | |
| checked | No | Mark item as done | |
| issueId | Yes | Issue key or id | |
| assignee | No | Assignee login or user id | |
| deadlineDate | No | Item deadline, format YYYY-MM-DDThh:mm:ss.sss±hhmm |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a non-destructive write. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on where the item is appended, whether it requires issue edit permissions, what happens with an invalid issueId, or whether the call is idempotent.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably thin rather than fully earning its brevity given the tool's five parameters.
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?
There is no output schema and the schema covers parameters, so the main gap is behavioral: a mutation tool with no indication of permissions, ordering, or side effects. The description is minimally viable but leaves the agent to infer everything about the write's consequences.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (issueId, text, checked, assignee, deadlineDate) are already documented in the schema, including the deadline format. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (add) and resource (checklist item) scoped to an issue, which distinguishes it somewhat from the generic plural sibling add_entity_checklist_items. However it never explains how it differs from that entity-level sibling or from edit_checklist_item/delete_checklist_item, so the differentiation is only implicit.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as add_entity_checklist_items or edit_checklist_item. The agent must infer applicability from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.