Delete a label from a project using its unique identifier and the project ID. Helps remove obsolete or incorrect tags to keep project data clean.
Delete a label
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the label to delete | |
| project_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the project containing the label |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5-8seneca.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete a label' implies a destructive mutation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related issues or cycles, or has rate limits. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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?
Extremely concise with zero waste—'Delete a label' is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
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?
Incomplete for a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description lacks context on consequences, permissions, or return values. Given the complexity of deletion operations and rich sibling tools, more information is needed to guide safe and correct usage.
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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (label_id and project_id as UUID identifiers). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which already documents the parameters adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description 'Delete a label' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (label), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like delete_cycle, delete_module, or delete_state. It doesn't specify whether this is a soft or hard deletion, or what happens to associated data.
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 tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to retrieve label_id first), consequences of deletion, or when not to use it. Sibling tools include create_label, get_label, update_label, and list_labels, but no comparison is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.