Edit an issue status in Yandex Tracker by updating its name, description, order, type, or category. Use it to keep workflow statuses accurate and organized.
Edit an issue status: name, description, order, category (admin).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | {"ru": "…", "en": "…"} | |
| type | No | ||
| order | No | ||
| version | No | ||
| statusKey | Yes | Status key or id | |
| description | 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 readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note — that the category field requires admin rights — but says nothing about partial-update semantics, whether omitted fields are preserved, or what happens on an invalid statusKey.
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 that lists the editable surface with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the parameter accuracy noted above.
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 6-parameter mutation tool with 33% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: it references a non-existent 'category' parameter and never mentions 'type' or 'version'. An agent would need to open the schema to call this correctly, and would be misled if it trusted the prose.
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?
The description names 'category', which is not a property in the schema (properties are name, type, order, version, statusKey, description), while omitting the 'type' and 'version' parameters entirely. With only 33% schema coverage, the description needed to compensate and instead introduces a misleading field name.
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?
Specific verb ('Edit') plus resource ('an issue status') and an enumeration of the editable attributes, which distinguishes it from siblings like create_status and get_statuses. It stops short of naming the related alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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_status or update_issue_type, and no prerequisites beyond the parenthetical '(admin)' on category. The agent is left to infer that this mutates an existing status rather than creating one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.