Post a comment on a Yandex Tracker issue with optional Yandex Flavored Markdown formatting. Use it to share updates, ask questions, or document issue progress.
Add a comment to an issue. Supports Yandex Flavored Markdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Comment text | |
| issueId | Yes | Issue key or id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-not-destructive profile is known. The description adds the useful detail that comment text supports Yandex Flavored Markdown, but says nothing about permissions, whether the comment is returned, or how edits differ.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded ahead of the formatting note. Nothing is wasted.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — it names the action and the supported markup format. The only gap is the lack of any routing hint against the many comment-related siblings.
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% (both text and issueId are documented in-schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as the issue key format or text length limits beyond what the schema provides.
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 and resource ('Add a comment to an issue'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as add_entity_comment and add_entity_comment, so an agent cannot tell from the description which entity scope applies.
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 guidance on when to use this versus add_entity_comment, edit_comment, or import_issue_comment, and no stated prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing issueId). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.