huly-mcp-selfhost

add_label

Adds a label to an issue and creates that label automatically when it does not exist, so you can categorize work without prior label setup.

Instructions

Add label to issue (auto-creates label)

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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "identifier": "<identifier>",
      "labelName": "<labelName>"
    },
    "name": "add_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`labelName`	Yes	Label name to add (auto-created if it does not exist)
`workspace`	Yes
`identifier`	Yes	Issue id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false and a title, so the description carries most of the burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait beyond the annotations – the label is created automatically if absent – but is silent on idempotency when the label already exists, required permissions, and what is returned.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

One short front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity reads as under-specification rather than economy, since essential context for a 3-parameter mutation is absent.

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 mutating tool with three required parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the definition leaves too much open: duplicate-label behavior, the undocumented workspace parameter, and the result of the call are all unexplained.

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 67%, with 'workspace' entirely undocumented. The description's auto-create note merely restates the schema text for labelName and adds nothing about what 'workspace' expects or what form 'identifier' takes, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Add label to issue') plus the notable side effect that the label is auto-created. That distinguishes it reasonably from create_label, though it never explicitly contrasts with remove_label or create_label.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer from the name and the parenthetical that this is for attaching an existing or new label to a specific issue, and the description offers no alternative tool or precondition to route on.

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

Deploy Server