Fetch a Yandex Tracker issue by key or ID to inspect its fields, comments, attachments, and transitions before editing or reporting.
Get issue parameters by key or id, e.g. "TREK-123".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| expand | No | Comma-separated extra data to include: "transitions", "attachments", "comments" | |
| fields | No | Comma-separated list of issue fields to include in the response | |
| 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 supply readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on what is returned, permission requirements, or behavior for nonexistent/invalid keys.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. "Parameters" is slightly vague wording but the sentence contains no filler.
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, so the description should at least hint at what a fetched issue contains; it does not. For a simple read tool with a fully documented schema this is passable but incomplete.
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%, so issueId, expand, and fields are all documented in the schema (including the valid expand values). The description's "TREK-123" example reinforces the issueId format but adds little beyond the schema's own "Issue key or id".
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 clear verb ("Get") and resource ("issue") and pins the identifier form with the example "TREK-123". It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as find_issues, get_entity, or search_entities, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 single-issue fetch versus find_issues/search_entities, and no stated prerequisites. The only implicit signal is the key-vs-id identifier form.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.