Retrieve detailed information for a specific label using its project and label UUIDs.
Get details of a specific label
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label_id | Yes | The uuid identifier of the label to get | |
| 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, what permissions are required, how errors are handled, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get details of a specific label.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with 2 required parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader context of sibling tools like 'list_labels'. For a tool without structured behavioral or output information, more descriptive context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('label_id' and 'project_id'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter relationships or usage examples. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.
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 'Get details of a specific label' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('label'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' include and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_labels' or 'create_label' beyond the basic action. It's not tautological but remains somewhat vague.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_labels' for listing all labels or 'create_label' for creating new ones, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing a project context. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, with no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.