addy-mcp

set_alias_labels

Idempotent

Replace the labels attached to an alias by alias ID, passing a list of label IDs. Send an empty list to remove all labels from the alias.

Instructions

Replace the labels attached to an alias.

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": {
      "alias_id": "<alias_id>",
      "label_ids": "<label_ids>"
    },
    "name": "set_alias_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`alias_id`	Yes	The id (UUID) of the item
`label_ids`	Yes	Labels the alias should have (empty list removes all)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'Replace' usefully signals full-overwrite semantics consistent with the idempotent hint, but the description says nothing about required permissions, side effects on existing labels, or response behavior for a non-readOnly, open-world mutation.

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 no filler and the key semantic ('Replace') front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves no room for the guidance an agent would benefit from.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the core operation is adequately conveyed. Gaps remain around permission requirements and the single-vs-bulk choice, which matter for an open-world mutation tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that label_ids is the desired label set and that an empty list removes all labels. The description adds no syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Replace' plus 'the labels attached to an alias'. The replacement semantics distinguish it from an additive label call, but it does not name or differentiate itself from the sibling bulk_set_alias_labels, leaving that distinction to inference.

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 stated exclusions, and no pointer to the bulk variant for multi-alias operations. The agent must infer both the single-alias scope and any prerequisites from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server