Creates a version in a Yandex Tracker queue to track releases or milestones, with optional start date, due date, and description.
Create a version in a queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Version name | |
| dueDate | No | Due date, format YYYY-MM-DD | |
| queueId | Yes | Queue key | |
| startDate | No | Start date, format YYYY-MM-DD | |
| description | No | Version description |
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 mutation/non-destructive profile is already covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no note on permission requirements, whether version names must be unique, what happens to dates, or what is returned. For a create operation this leaves real gaps.
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 padding. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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?
A 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation detail on side effects. The description does not say what creating a version affects, what the response contains, or how the optional dueDate/startDate interact, so an agent lacks context to call it confidently in edge cases.
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 coverage is 100% and every parameter carries its own description, including the YYYY-MM-DD date format. The description adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema 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 and resource ('Create a version in a queue'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like create_queue, create_queue_tag, or update_queue_version. It stops short of any scope or behavioral detail, but the action is unambiguous.
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 context, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives (e.g. get_queue_versions to check existing versions first, or update_queue_version for edits). The agent must infer the usage scenario 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.