Edit a queue's local field—such as name, category, options, or visibility—to update Yandex Tracker settings accurately.
Edit a local field of a queue: name, category, options, visibility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| hidden | No | ||
| queueId | Yes | ||
| visible | No | ||
| category | No | ||
| fieldKey | Yes | ||
| readonly | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| optionsProvider | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already tell the agent this is a mutation that is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether this is a partial update, what happens to fields omitted from the call, or what permissions are needed. For a 10-parameter mutation with zero added behavioral context, this is a clear gap.
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 no filler, which is structurally efficient. It is arguably over-terse given the parameter count, but there is no wasted language.
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 mutation tool with 10 params, 0% schema description coverage, nested objects, and no output schema, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot reliably determine accepted value shapes or update semantics from this text.
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% across 10 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden, yet it only names a handful ('name, category, options, visibility') and maps them loosely. It never explains order, hidden, readonly, description, optionsProvider's structure, or the required queueId and fieldKey.
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 ('Edit') and resource ('a local field of a queue'), which clearly separates it from create_queue_local_field and get_queue_local_field. It enumerates a few editable aspects, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it must not be confused with.
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 statement of when to use this versus create_queue_local_field, get_queue_local_field, or get_queue_fields, and no prerequisites such as needing an existing queueId/fieldKey. The agent must infer usage 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.