addy-mcp

create_label

Create named, color-coded labels to organize aliases and group related addresses in an addy.io account.

Instructions

Create a label for organising aliases.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "colour": "<colour>"
    },
    "name": "create_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`colour`	Yes	#06b6d4 cyan, #22c55e green, #eab308 yellow, #f97316 orange, #ef4444 red, #8b5cf6 violet, #64748b slate, #ec4899 pink, #14b8a6 teal, #3b82f6 blue

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description says nothing about whether label names must be unique, what happens on a duplicate name, whether the call is idempotent, or what the response contains — meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than optimal brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a create mutation with no output schema and an undocumented required parameter, the description should say more — at minimum what is returned and whether duplicate names are rejected. As written, an agent can attempt the call but cannot predict failure modes or the result shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%: the colour enum is fully self-documenting with hex/name mappings, but the name parameter has no description at all. The description does not compensate — it says nothing about name length, uniqueness, allowed characters, or whether colour is mandatory.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a clear verb+resource ("Create a label") and adds a purpose clause ("for organising aliases") that tells the agent what labels are for. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from update_label or delete_label, but the create verb is unambiguous against those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no mention of alternatives such as update_label for existing labels or bulk_set_alias_labels for assignment. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server