Edit an existing queue trigger in Yandex Tracker to change its name, actions, conditions, or position. Requires queue ID, trigger ID, and current version.
Edit a trigger: name, actions, conditions, position (version = trigger version).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| active | No | ||
| before | No | Trigger id to place this one before | |
| actions | No | ||
| queueId | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | Current trigger version | |
| triggerId | Yes | ||
| conditions | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds only the parenthetical '(version = trigger version)', which hints at optimistic concurrency but never says what happens on a stale version, whether fields are partially or fully replaced, or whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared. For a mutation tool this leaves important behavior undisclosed.
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 compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the semantic gaps elsewhere rather than being purely a virtue.
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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with 25% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain version semantics, partial-update behavior, and the identity parameters. It provides none of this, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it without trial and error.
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 only 25%, so the description needs to carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not. It names some fields but never explains 'active', 'queueId', 'triggerId', or the fact that 'before' takes a trigger id, and the version note is the only semantic added. The agent is left guessing about most of the 8 parameters.
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+resource ('Edit a trigger') and enumerates the editable surface (name, actions, conditions, position), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_queue_trigger and create_queue_trigger. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the scope of the edit.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement that this applies only to an existing trigger, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the current version or read access first. The agent must infer that this is the mutation counterpart to create_queue_trigger.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.