Retrieve the permissions assigned to a group within a Yandex Tracker queue. Use it to check access rights for a queue and group before managing issues.
Get group permissions in a queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| groupId | Yes | ||
| queueId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the description carries a lower burden, but it adds nothing beyond that: no indication of what permissions are returned, whether inherited/effective permissions are included, or any auth requirement. It is essentially a restatement of the name.
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 the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate concision.
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 read tool with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description should at least characterize the returned permission data and disambiguate from sibling access tools. It does neither, leaving meaningful gaps.
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 0%, so both parameters (queueId, groupId) are undocumented in the schema. The description vaguely ties the call to a queue and a group, giving weak semantic mapping, but adds no format, ID type, or scoping detail for either required parameter.
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 (Get) and resource (group permissions in a queue), and the 'group' qualifier implicitly separates it from the sibling get_queue_user_access. It does not name or contrast with that sibling explicitly, so it lands just short of 5.
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 reference to the adjacent tools (get_queue_user_access, get_component_group_access, set_queue_access). 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.